Case Citator › Osborne v. Mobile

Osborne v. Mobile

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
83 U.S. 479
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
4 of 4
Citing cases (total)
4
Treatment dates
1888
Overruled
A reviewed court has overruled this case. Osborne v. Mobile was overruled as to its approval of a license tax on businesses engaged in interstate commerce. All 4 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The 1 confirmed treatment is listed below; the other citing opinions reported later Supreme Court decisions' treatment.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

4 later cases cite Osborne v. Mobile; 4 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Osborne v. Mobile?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled

  • The Supreme Court held that the license ordinance approved in Osborne would now be unconstitutional because it conflicted with Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

    Leloup v. Port of Mobile · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The state court relies upon the case of Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479, which brought up for consideration an ordinance of the city, requiring every express company, or railroad company doing business in that city, and having a business extending beyond the limits of the State, to pay an annual license of. $500; if the business was confined within the limits of the State, the license fee was only $100; if confined within the city, it was $50; subject in each case to a penalty for neglect or refusal to pay the charge. This court held that the ordinance Avas not unconstitutional. This was in December term, 1872. In view of the course of decisions which have been made since that time, it is very certain that such an ordinance would now be regarded as repugnant to the power Conferred upon Congress to regulate commerce among^the several States.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Osborne v. Mobile and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace