Search for: "Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc" Results 1 - 19 of 19
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Apr 2018, 7:50 am by Guest Bloggers
Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970), should replace the physical presence rule going forward. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 12:20 pm by Cicely Wilson
Bruce Church, Inc., the court concluded that, without any evidence that the Ordinance will affect the interstate flow of goods, the Ordinance does not substantially burden interstate commerce; and therefore, the Ordinance does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 2:43 am by FDABlog HPM
Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970), a court must ask whether the burden imposed on interstate commerce by, in this case, the Alameda Ordinance is significant vis-à-vis the putative local benefits. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 12:46 pm by Steve Bainbridge
The circuit court relied on the balancing standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Pike v. [read post]