Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

C.a. Weed & Company v. Lockwood, As United States Attorney For The Western District Of New York

• 1920 • 255 U.S. 104 • White Court
In the case of C.A. Weed & Company v. Lockwood, 1920, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over whether or not federal courts had jurisdiction to enjoin state officials from enforcing an allegedly unconstitutional state law before any action was taken under that law. The plaintiff, C.A. Weed & Co., sought to prevent enforcement of a New York State statute regulating cold storage of food products on grounds it violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and interfered with...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1920
Docket: 407
255 U.S. 104
41 S. Ct. 305
65 L. Ed. 532
1921 U.S. LEXIS 1799
Argued: Oct 18, 1920

C.a. Weed & Company v. Lockwood, As United States Attorney For The Western District Of New York

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of C.A. Weed & Company v. Lockwood, 1920, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over whether or not federal courts had jurisdiction to enjoin state officials from enforcing an allegedly unconstitutional state law before any action was taken under that law. The plaintiff, C.A. Weed & Co., sought to prevent enforcement of a New York State statute regulating cold storage of food products on grounds it violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and interfered with interstate commerce. The court held that federal courts did have such jurisdiction but only if irreparable injury would result from waiting for state proceedings to occur first - something which wasn't demonstrated in this case by C.A. Weed & Co.. Therefore, they ruled against them stating that there must be no adequate remedy at law available and immediate danger must exist warranting issuance of injunction in order for Federal Courts to interfere with actions of administrative officers.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of C.A. Weed & Company v. Lockwood argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on foreign corporations doing business within New York State was unconstitutional, as it violated the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the U.S Constitution. The dissent contended that this tax unfairly burdened interstate commerce by imposing an additional cost on out-of-state businesses not faced by their in-state counterparts, thereby creating an unfair advantage for local companies. Additionally, they believed that due process rights were infringed upon because foreign corporations were being taxed without receiving any corresponding benefits or protections from New York State government services or infrastructure - essentially taxation without representation or benefit.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Feb 28, 1921
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms