[543] Kansas City Ry. v. Kansas, 240 U.S. 227 (1916); Kansas City, M. & B.R. Co. v. Stiles, 242 U.S. 111 (1916).
[544] Schwab v. Richardson, 263 U.S. 88 (1923).
[545] Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 1 (1910); Pullman Co. v. Kansas ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 56 (1910); Looney v. Crane Co., 245 U.S. 178 (1917); International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 135 (1918).
[546] Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460 (1929).
[547] St. Louis S.W.R. Co. v. Arkansas ex rel. Norwood, 235 U.S. 350 (1914).
[548] Atlantic Refining Co. v. Virginia, 302 U.S. 22 (1937).
[549] American Mfg Co. v. St. Louis, 250 U.S. 459 (1919). Nor does a State license tax on the production of electricity violate the due process clause because it may be necessary, to ascertain, as an element in its computation, the amounts delivered in another jurisdiction.—Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pfost, 286 U.S. 165 (1932).
[550] James v. Dravo Contracting Co. 302 U.S. 134 (1937).
[551] Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905).
[552] Southern Pacific Co. v. Kentucky, 222 U.S. 63 (1911).