Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105 (1928)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105 (1928)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 278 U.S. 101, click here.
Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge No. 34 Argued October 8, 1928 Decided November 19, 1928 278 U.S. 105
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Syllabus
1. The business of a foreign corporation is property, and the corporation a "person," within the meaning of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 111.
2. A foreign corporation may not be subjected to statutes that are in conflict with the federal Constitution by a state in which it has been permitted to do business. Id.
3. A state statute forbidding any corporation to own a pharmacy or drugstore in addition to those owned at the time of the enactment, unless all of its stockholders are licensed pharmacists, violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to a foreign corporation which owned such store under license of the state, and sought to extend its business by acquiring and operating others. P. 111.
4. Mere stock ownership in a corporation owning and operating a drugstore can have no real or substantial relation to the public health. P. 113.
5. That the stock of corporations owning and operating chain drugstore is bought and sold on the stock exchanges and must be largely held by person who are not registered pharmacists are facts that may be judicially noticed. Id.
22 F.2d 993 reversed.
Appeal from a decree of the district court, composed of three judges, dismissing the bill whereby appellant drugstore company sought to enjoin the Attorney General and other officers of Pennsylvania, from prosecuting it under an act regulating the ownership of drugstores. The court had previously denied an application for a preliminary injunction.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105 (1928) in 278 U.S. 105 278 U.S. 106–278 U.S. 108. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=6442DMI2RVV5ADB.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105 (1928), in 278 U.S. 105, pp. 278 U.S. 106–278 U.S. 108. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=6442DMI2RVV5ADB.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105 (1928). cited in 1928, 278 U.S. 105, pp.278 U.S. 106–278 U.S. 108. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=6442DMI2RVV5ADB.
|