SHALLENBERGER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA,
v.
FIRST STATE BANK OF HOLSTEIN, NEBRASKA
SHALLENBERGER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA,
FIRST STATE BANK OF HOLSTEIN, NEBRASKA
219 U.S. 114
Supreme Court of the United States (1911)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 55 L. Ed. 117 · 31 S. Ct. 189 · 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1623 · SCDB 1910-053
Cited by 11 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit by many banks to prevent the Banking Board of Nebraska from carrying out and enforcing an act similar to the Oklahoma statute just passed upon. It forbids banking except by a corporation formed under the act and provides for a guaranty fund. The Circuit Court held the statute unconstitutional and issued an injunction against the enforcement of it. 172 Fed. Rep. 999. For the reasons given in the foregoing case the decree of the Circuit Court'must be reversed.
Decree reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1934)…v. Louisiana, 232 U.S. 334; forbidding any other than a corporation to engage in the business of receiving deposits, Dillingham v. McLaughlin, 264 U.S. 370, or any other than corporations to do a banking business, Shallenberger v. First State Bank, 219 U.S. 114. Physicians, Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114; Watson v. Maryland, 218 U.S. 173; Crane v. Johnson, 242 U.S. 339; Hayman v. Galveston, 273 U.S. 414; dentists, Douglas v. Noble, 261 U.S. 165; Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425; employment agencies,…
-
Frost v. Corp. Comm'n of Okla., 278 U.S. 515 (U.S. 1929)…t would otherwise be a trespass. Further, it is not maintained that the State is restricted to the issuance of franchises for the carrying on of such callings. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 112-113. Shallenberger v. First State Bank, 219 U. S. 114; Dillingham v. McLaughlin, 264 U. S. 370. Compare Assaria State Bank v. Dolley, 219 U. S. 121; German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Kansas, 233 U. S. 389, 416. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 595; People’s Railroad v. Memphis Railroad, 10 Wall. 38, 5…
-
Am. Fed'n of Labor v. Am. Sash & Door Co., 335 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1949)…in the wake of the panic of 1907 by Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. Despite serious doubts of their wisdom, the laws were sustained against due-process attack in Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104 and 575; Shallenberger v. First State Bank, 219 U. S. 114; Assaria State Bank v. Dolley, 219 U. S. 121. Experience proved the laws to be unworkable, see Robb, Guaranty of Bank Deposits in 2 Encyc. Soc. Sciences 417 (1930). But since no due-process obstacle stood in the way, it remained possible to profit b…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (32 total)
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1902)
- Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Tr. Co., 154 U.S. 362 (U.S. 1894)
- The Trs. of Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518 (U.S. 1819)
- Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1877)
- Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1885)
- Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1897)
- Gulf v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1897)
- Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1894)
- Cnty. of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1880)
- The Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519 (U.S. 1839)