Constitutional Methods of Regulating Jitneys

The Yale Law Journal
Vol. 31, No. 2 (Dec., 1921), pp. 183-187
DOI: 10.2307/789307
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/789307
Page Count: 5
  • Download PDF
  • Cite this Item

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

Constitutional Methods of Regulating Jitneys
We're having trouble loading this content. Download PDF instead.

Notes and References

This item contains 28 references.

[Footnotes]
  • 1
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Hadacheck (1913) i65 Calif. 4I6, 132 Pac. 584
    • (1918) 31HARV. L. REV.1034.
  • 2
    Public Service Commission v. Booth (1915) 170 App. Div. 590, I56 N. Y. SUPP. 140.
  • 3
    L. R. A. i9i8 F, 475, note.
  • 4
    Freund, Police Power (1904) secs. 643-644.
  • 5
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • State v. Porter (I92O) 94 Conn. 639, iIo AtI. 59
    • Ingham v. Brooks (I920) 95 Conn. 3I7, iii Ati. 209
    • (1916) 16COL. L. REV.345
    • COMMENTS (1920) 30 YALE LAW JOURNAL, 171.
  • 6
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Buttfield v. Stranwhan (I904) 192 U. S. 470, 24 Sup. Ct. 349
    • Interstate Commerce Commission v. Goodrich Transit Co. (1912) 224 U. S. 194, 32 SUP. Ct 436
    • State v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. (I908) 56 Fla. 617, 47 So. 969
    • Cheadle, Delegation of Legislative Functions (i9I8) 27YALE LAW JOURNAL, 892.
  • 7
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • 0'Neil v. Fire Insurance Co. (i895) i66 Pa. 72, 30 Atl. 943
    • Fite v. State (1905) II4 Tenn. 646, 88 S. W. 941
    • State v. Gt. Northern Ry. (1907) IOO Minn. 445, III N. W. 289.
  • 8
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Yick Wo v. Hopkins (i886) ii8 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. Io64.
    • Noble v. Douglas (192I, W. D. Wash.) 274 Fed. 672.
  • 9
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Blunt v. Shepardson (I9I8) 286 Ill. 84, 12I N. E. 263
    • COMMENTS (I919) 28YALE LAW JOURNAL, 692.
  • 10
    Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville, etc. Ry. (1913) 227 U. S. 88, 33 SUP. Ct. i85.
  • 11
    State v. Conlon (i895) 65 Conn. 478, 486, 33 Atl. 5I9, 521.
  • 12
    Wallace v. Reno (I903) 27 Nev. 71, 73 Pac. 528.
  • 13
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Lieberman v. Van De Carr (1905) 199 U. S. 552, 26 Sup. Ct. i44
    • COMMENTS (1919) 28YALE LAW JOURNAL, 391.
  • 14
    Durand v. Dyson (I9IS) 27I I11. 382, iII N. E. I43.
  • 15
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Ex parte Dickey (19I5) 76 W. Va. 576, 85 S. E. 78i
    • Schoenfeld v. City of Seattle (i920, W. D. Wash.) 265 Fed. 726.
  • 16
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Hadfield v. Lundin (1917) 98 Wash. 657, i68 Pac. 5i6
    • Peters v. San Antonio (1917, Tex. Civ. App.) I95 S. W. 989.
  • 17
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • City of Memphis v. State (i9i5) 133 Tenn. 83, 179 S. W. 631
    • Huston v. Des Moines (i9i6) I76 Iowa, 455, i56 N. W. 883
    • Cummins v. Jones (i9i6) 79 Or. 276, I55 Pac. I7I
    • McGlothern v. City of Seattle (i921, Wash.) i99 Pac. 457.
  • 18
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Jitney Bus Association v. City of Wilkes-Barre (19I7) 256 Pa. 462, I00 Atl. 954
    • Curry v. Osborne (I9I8) 75 Fla. 85, 79 So. 293
    • Parrish v. Richmond (I9I6) II9 Va. i8o, 89 S. E. I02.
  • 19
    Public Service Commission v. Booth, supra note 2.
  • 20
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Wilson v. Eureka City (i899) I73 U. S. 32, I9 Sup. Ct. 3I7
    • Cicero Lumber Co. v. Cicero (I898) 176 I11. 9, 5I N. E. 758.
  • 21
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Davis v. Massachusetts (I897) I67 U. S. 43, I7 SUp. Ct. 73I
    • State v. Coleman (I92I, Conn.) II3 AtI. 385.
  • 22
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Matter of Frazee (i886) 63 Mich. 396, 30 N. W. 72
    • Freund, op. cit. secs. 643-644
  • 23
    Pub. Acts, I1921, ch. 77.
  • 24
    Rev. Sts. i9i8, sec. 3828.
  • 25
    This reference contains 6 citations:
    • Stevens v. Connecticut Co. (I9I2) 86 Conn. 36, 84 AtI. 36i.
    • State v. Board of Dental Examiners (0905) 38 Wash. 325, 8o Pac. 544.
    • Amperse v. City of Kalamazoo (i886) 59 Mich. 78, 26 N. W. 222
    • Board of Dental Examiners v. People (i887) I23 Ill. 227, 13 N. E. 201
    • Thomp- son v. Koch (i895) 98 Ky. 400, 33 S. W. 96.
    • Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Minnesota (i890) 134 U. S. 4i8, I0 Sup. Ct 702.
  • 26
    Supra note 21.
  • 27
    Supra notes 20 and 21.
  • 28
    LeBlanc v. City of New Orleans (19i5) i38 La. 243, 70 SO. 2I2.