interstate commerce clause in New York

1982(Elkison v Deliesseline, Fed Case No. 4366; Smith v Turner, 7 How [48 US] 283; Crandall v Nevada, 6 Wall [73 US] 35; Paul v Virginia, 8 Wall [75 US] 168; Ward v Maryland, 12 Wall [79 US] 418; Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78 ; Edwards v California, 314 US 160 ; Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618 ; Dunn v Blumstein, 405 US 330 ; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Porter, 480 F Supp 686 .) 1 Thus, the defendant claims that the condition prohibiting the defendant from exercising his right to interstate travel nullifies the South Carolina conviction.

1969I, § 8, subd. 3) delegates to the Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, the States may exercise their police powers within matters of purely local concern by enacting legislation which has an incidental effect upon that commerce so long as the regulation is reasonable and necessary and does not unduly jmrden thé flow of interstate commerce (Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160 ; Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of Detroit, 362 U. S. 440 ; Quaker Oats Co. v. City of New York, 295 N. Y. 527 ).

1981In construing statutes which license foreign corporations to do business within our State, we must avoid unlawful interference by the State with interstate commerce (Tauza v Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 NY 259, 267 ; International Text Book Co. v Tone, 220 NY 313, 318 ).

1976Judge Cardozo himself emphasized this distinction in the seminal Tauza v Susquehanna Coal Co. ( 220 NY 259, 266-267 ) and its companion International Text Book Co. v Tone 220 NY 313, 318 ).

1981In construing statutes which license foreign corporations to do business within our State, we must avoid unlawful interference by the State with interstate commerce (Tauza v Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 NY 259, 267 ; International Text Book Co. v Tone, 220 NY 313, 318 ).

1976Judge Cardozo himself emphasized this distinction in the seminal Tauza v Susquehanna Coal Co. ( 220 NY 259, 266-267 ) and its companion International Text Book Co. v Tone 220 NY 313, 318 ).

1980Plaintiff's second contention, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Philadelphia v New Jersey ( 437 US 617 ), is that the town's ordinance violates the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution.

1980Plaintiff’s second contention, relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Philadelphia v New Jersey ( 437 US 617 ), is that the town’s ordinance violates the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution.

2019The second clause-the interstate commerce clause-" is designed to narrow 'the long-arm reach to preclude the exercise of jurisdiction over nondomiciliaries who might cause direct, foreseeable injury within the State but whose business operations are of a ***539 local character ' " ( LaMarca, 95 N.Y.2d at 215 , 713 N.Y.S.2d 304 , 735 N.E.2d 883 [some internal quotation marks omitted] [emphasis added], quoting Ingraham, 90 N.Y.2d at 599 , 665 N.Y.S.2d 10 , 687 N.E.2d 1293 ; see 12th Ann Report of Jud Conf, at 342-343).

2019The second clause-the interstate commerce clause-" is designed to narrow 'the long-arm reach to preclude the exercise of jurisdiction over nondomiciliaries who might cause direct, foreseeable injury within the State but whose business operations are of a ***539 local character ' " ( LaMarca, 95 N.Y.2d at 215 , 713 N.Y.S.2d 304 , 735 N.E.2d 883 [some internal quotation marks omitted] [emphasis added], quoting Ingraham, 90 N.Y.2d at 599 , 665 N.Y.S.2d 10 , 687 N.E.2d 1293 ; see 12th Ann Report of Jud Conf, at 342-343).

1992The ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on the corporate appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction does not require that we rule in their favor here (cf., Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 272 ; Niagara Recycling v Town of Niagara, supra, at 324), and we conclude that the appellants’ interstate commerce claim is insufficient to justify denying the Town summary judgment (see, Filiberto Sanitation v State of New Jersey Dept, of Envtl.

1982(Elkison v Deliesseline, Fed Case No. 4366; Smith v Turner, 7 How [48 US] 283; Crandall v Nevada, 6 Wall [73 US] 35; Paul v Virginia, 8 Wall [75 US] 168; Ward v Maryland, 12 Wall [79 US] 418; Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78 ; Edwards v California, 314 US 160 ; Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618 ; Dunn v Blumstein, 405 US 330 ; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Porter, 480 F Supp 686 .) 1 Thus, the defendant claims that the condition prohibiting the defendant from exercising his right to interstate travel nullifies the South Carolina conviction.

1982(Elkison v Deliesseline, Fed Case No. 4366; Smith v Turner, 7 How [48 US] 283; Crandall v Nevada, 6 Wall [73 US] 35; Paul v Virginia, 8 Wall [75 US] 168; Ward v Maryland, 12 Wall [79 US] 418; Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78 ; Edwards v California, 314 US 160 ; Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618 ; Dunn v Blumstein, 405 US 330 ; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Porter, 480 F Supp 686 .) 1 Thus, the defendant claims that the condition prohibiting the defendant from exercising his right to interstate travel nullifies the South Carolina conviction.

1982(Elkison v Deliesseline, Fed Case No. 4366; Smith v Turner, 7 How [48 US] 283; Crandall v Nevada, 6 Wall [73 US] 35; Paul v Virginia, 8 Wall [75 US] 168; Ward v Maryland, 12 Wall [79 US] 418; Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78 ; Edwards v California, 314 US 160 ; Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618 ; Dunn v Blumstein, 405 US 330 ; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Porter, 480 F Supp 686 .) 1 Thus, the defendant claims that the condition prohibiting the defendant from exercising his right to interstate travel nullifies the South Carolina conviction.

1982(Elkison v Deliesseline, Fed Case No. 4366; Smith v Turner, 7 How [48 US] 283; Crandall v Nevada, 6 Wall [73 US] 35; Paul v Virginia, 8 Wall [75 US] 168; Ward v Maryland, 12 Wall [79 US] 418; Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78 ; Edwards v California, 314 US 160 ; Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618 ; Dunn v Blumstein, 405 US 330 ; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Porter, 480 F Supp 686 .) 1 Thus, the defendant claims that the condition prohibiting the defendant from exercising his right to interstate travel nullifies the South Carolina conviction.

1979The petitioner’s four offices in New York State and its employees constitute such a presence (National Geographic v California Equalization Bd., supra).

1977(Trustees of Exempt Firemen’s Fund of City of N. Y. v Roome, 93 NY 313 .) Whatever their characterization however, the constitutional validity of these so-called "taxes” has been upheld (Trustees of Exempt Firemen’s Fund v Roome, supra) and have been further determined not to be violative of the interstate commerce clause of the United States Constitution and within the scope of the exemption from the commerce clause of State insurance regulations authorized by Congress in the McCarran Act.

1977(Trustees of Exempt Firemen’s Fund of City of N. Y. v Roome, 93 NY 313 .) Whatever their characterization however, the constitutional validity of these so-called "taxes” has been upheld (Trustees of Exempt Firemen’s Fund v Roome, supra) and have been further determined not to be violative of the interstate commerce clause of the United States Constitution and within the scope of the exemption from the commerce clause of State insurance regulations authorized by Congress in the McCarran Act.

1976Co. v Miller ( 94 App Div 587, 590-591 ) the court referred to the words "interstate character”, however, its decision clearly indicates that what it considered the language to mean was an intent not to tax transportation in a way forbidden by the United States Constitution and in particular the interstate commerce clause.

1969I, § 8, subd. 3) delegates to the Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, the States may exercise their police powers within matters of purely local concern by enacting legislation which has an incidental effect upon that commerce so long as the regulation is reasonable and necessary and does not unduly jmrden thé flow of interstate commerce (Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160 ; Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of Detroit, 362 U. S. 440 ; Quaker Oats Co. v. City of New York, 295 N. Y. 527 ).

1969I, § 8, subd. 3) delegates to the Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, the States may exercise their police powers within matters of purely local concern by enacting legislation which has an incidental effect upon that commerce so long as the regulation is reasonable and necessary and does not unduly jmrden thé flow of interstate commerce (Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160 ; Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of Detroit, 362 U. S. 440 ; Quaker Oats Co. v. City of New York, 295 N. Y. 527 ).

1961Co. v. Gippert ( 92 Misc. 204, 205-206 ) in passing on this question, the court said: ‘ ‘ While I think the evidence was sufficient to show that the office at 30 Church Street was in fact, though not in name, an office of the plaintiff, it is not necessary that a foreign corporation maintain an office in this state in order to transact business here and to come within the prohibition of the statute.” Plaintiff further argues that its transactions fall within the protection of the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution.

1892Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1380; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203 ; Railroad Co. v. Miller, 17 Wall. 560 ; Robbins v. Shelby Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489 , 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 592; Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347 , 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1126.

1892Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1380; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203 ; Railroad Co. v. Miller, 17 Wall. 560 ; Robbins v. Shelby Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489 , 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 592; Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347 , 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1126.

1892Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1380; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203 ; Railroad Co. v. Miller, 17 Wall. 560 ; Robbins v. Shelby Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489 , 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 592; Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347 , 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1126.

1892Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1380; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203 ; Railroad Co. v. Miller, 17 Wall. 560 ; Robbins v. Shelby Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489 , 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 592; Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347 , 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1126.