Search for: "Pike v. State"
Results 101 - 120
of 265
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 May 2022, 4:12 am
It is well settled that legal malpractice causes of actions have a three year statute of limitations (CPLR §214 (6), Schrull v. [read post]
16 Sep 2022, 5:01 am
See NetChoice, LLC v. [read post]
19 May 2007, 10:12 am
Rather, he invites the State to violate two of the most basic norms of a civilized society - that the State's penal authority be invoked only where necessary to serve the ends of justice, not the ends of a particular individual, and that punishment be imposed only where the State has adequate assurance that the punishment is justified.United States Supreme Court Justice, 1990(1)Robert Comer, Christopher Newton and Elijah Page have something in common, aside… [read post]
2 Apr 2020, 6:30 am
Pike v. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 11:15 am
United States v. [read post]
20 May 2013, 12:57 am
Brady v. [read post]
23 Jul 2018, 4:38 pm
§ 216B.246 fails the balancing test set forth in Pike v. [read post]
23 Jul 2018, 4:38 pm
§ 216B.246 fails the balancing test set forth in Pike v. [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 8:40 am
The justices will decide the following issues: “(1) Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant commerce clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle described in the Supreme Court’s decisions is now a dead letter; and (2) whether such allegations, concerning a law that is based solely on preferences… [read post]
24 Feb 2007, 8:48 am
See United States v. [read post]
8 May 2017, 1:45 am
Pike, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 5:00 am
In Kokesh v. [read post]
11 Oct 2022, 5:01 am
There is no need for the Supreme Court to revive the nebulous balancing tests of yesteryear, such as Pike v. [read post]
13 Feb 2018, 4:26 pm
So difficult, in fact, that the Supreme Court hasn’t actually struck down a state statute using Pike balancing since the 1980s. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 12:20 pm
Zavodnik v. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm
Under the Court’s Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, a state law imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce if, as the Court famously articulated in Pike v. [read post]
26 Oct 2020, 8:13 am
” Pike v. [read post]
17 Sep 2017, 9:30 pm
Even when no federal law exists to conflict with state or local regulation, subnational rules can be unlawful if their burden on interstate commerce is “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits”—a test the Supreme Court announced in Pike v. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 6:24 am
Haynes and State Farm, November Term, 2010, No. 03227 (Phila. [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 7:26 am
Sources: Complaint at 32, Borné et. al. v. [read post]
