Search for: "Pike v. State"
Results 121 - 140
of 293
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
29 Feb 2016, 6:12 am
(Boone Coleman Constr., Inc. 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]
10 Aug 2015, 4:00 am
The Court of Appeals also stated that Mr. [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 7:26 am
Sources: Complaint at 32, Borné et. al. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 9:12 am
The Court's 4-3 ruling in Weis v. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 11:09 am
United States Second Circuit, 08/03/2010 US v. [read post]
19 Nov 2017, 5:45 am
Barnes v. [read post]
28 Nov 2009, 12:18 pm
McCooey and State Farm, 2009 WL 2418862, 2320-2008-Civil (Pike Co. [read post]
5 Dec 2016, 6:31 am
See City of Akron v. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 4:30 am
McGraw v. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 4:30 am
McGraw v. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 1:41 pm
McCooey and State Farm, 2320-2008-Civil (Pike Co. [read post]
22 Jun 2012, 8:46 am
In Wilson v. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 8:50 am
Title V of the Clean Air Act requires permits for all major industrial sources with state administration and federal oversight. [read post]
