wise and wholesome rule (Louisiana) · Go Syfert
← Louisiana issues

wise and wholesome rule in Louisiana

5 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1938–1967 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Northern Securities Co. v. United Statesgreen
· 1904 · cited in 5 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1938–1967
2 sentences

1967If the laws passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied, and judicial determination to that effect renders a court functus officio. ‘Whether the free operation of the normal laws of competition is a wise and wholesome rule for trade and com merce is an economic question which this court need not consider or determine.’ Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 337, 338 , 24 S.Ct. 436, 457 , 48 L.Ed. 679 .

1967If the laws passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied, and judicial determination to that effect renders a court functus officio. ‘Whether the free operation of the normal laws of competition is a wise and wholesome rule for trade and com merce is an economic question which this court need not consider or determine.’ Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 337, 338 , 24 S.Ct. 436, 457 , 48 L.Ed. 679 .

45

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 1 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 7 (1934–1999) LA 5 (1938–1967) NJ 5 (1951–1988) PA 3 (1907–1978) CT 2 (1940–1952)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check