Search for: "ROBERTS V COMMERCE" Results 621 - 640 of 1,691
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Mar 2010, 7:19 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
The e-Commerce Times summarizes the complaint which said, 4. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 9:12 am by Cynthia L. Hackerott
Supreme Court plurality has ruled (Coleman v Maryland Court of Appeals, Dkt No 11-1754, March 20, 2012 (95 EPD ¶44,452)). [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 1:21 pm
The court further held that the claim also failed to meet the requirement that the actions have an impact on maritime commerce. [read post]
31 May 2017, 3:55 pm by elliot
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Impression Products v. [read post]
1 Apr 2022, 8:22 am by HRWatchdog
Supreme Court rules on another arbitration-related case, Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 3:49 am
I've always liked Judge Sweet, not because I've followed him over the years, but because of one case he decided in the year when I worked in the same courthouse.In United States v. [read post]
And these powers must be used consistent with the dormant Commerce Clause, a doctrine that restricts state actions that impose too heavy a burden on interstate commerce. [read post]
1 Jul 2023, 2:31 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Norfolk Souther Railway on personal jurisdiction and National Pork Producers Council on the dormant commerce clause). [read post]
2 May 2024, 7:50 am by Dan Farber
Dept. of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 2:11 pm by Edward A. Fallone
  I thought that neither Justice Robert’s Commerce Clause analysis nor his Taxing Power analysis was particularly compelling, yet I was struck by the manner in which the Chief Justice managed to construct a 5-4 majority that paralleled Marbury v. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 2:11 pm by Edward A. Fallone
  I thought that neither Justice Robert’s Commerce Clause analysis nor his Taxing Power analysis was particularly compelling, yet I was struck by the manner in which the Chief Justice managed to construct a 5-4 majority that paralleled Marbury v. [read post]