Cases pin-citing Baker · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Baker

Cases pin-citing Baker

South Carolina v. Baker  ·  1988  ·  30 pinpoint citations from 13 cases, 10 distinct passages.

Ohio v. United States  ·  2016-01-05  ·  S.D. Ohio  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 108 L. Ed. 2d at 505
“Garcia holds that the limits are structural, not substantive— ie., that States must find their protection from congressional regulation through the national political process, not through judicially defined spheres of unregulable state activity.”
Montgomery County, Maryland v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n  ·  2014-01-27  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 108 L. Ed. 2d at 505
“Any federal regulation demands compliance”
In re City of Detroit  ·  2013-12-20  ·  E.D. Michigan  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 108 L. Ed. 2d at 592
“We use ‘the Tenth Amendment’ to encompass any implied constitutional limitation on Congress’ authority to regulate state activities, whether grounded in the Tenth Amendment itself or in principles of federalism derived generally from the Constitution.”
In re City of Detroit  ·  2013-12-05  ·  E.D. Michigan  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 108 L. Ed. 2d at 592
“We use ‘the Tenth Amendment’ to encompass any implied constitutional limitation on Congress’ authority to regulate state activities, whether grounded in the Tenth Amendment itself or in principles of federalism derived generally from the Constitution.”
West Virginia v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services  ·  2002-05-07  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 108 L. Ed. 2d at 505
“That a State wishing to engage in certain activity must take administrative and sometimes legislative action to comply with federal standards regulating that activity is a commonplace that presents no constitutional defect.”
West Virginia v. Department of Health & Human Services  ·  2002-05-07  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 108 L. Ed. 2d at 505
"That a State wishing to engage in certain activity must take administrative and sometimes legislative action to comply with federal standards regulating that activity is a commonplace that presents no constitutional defect."
Freilich v. Board of Directors of Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc.  ·  2001-05-14  ·  D. Maryland  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 108 L. Ed. 2d at 592
“Any federal regulation demands compliance. That a State wishing to engage in certain activity must take administrative and sometimes legislative action to comply with federal standards regulating that activity is a commonplace that presents no constitutional defect.”
In Re Fleming  ·  2000-06-30  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 108 L. Ed. 2d at 505
“We thus confirm that subsequent case law has overruled the holding in Pollock that state bond interest is immune from a nondiscriminatory federal tax.”
New York v. United States  ·  1991-08-08  ·  Second Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 108 L. Ed. 2d at 592
“Garcia holds that the limits are structural, not substan tive — i.e., that States must find their protection from congressional regulation through the national political process, not through judicially defined spheres of unregulable state activity.”
State of New York v. United States  ·  1991-08-08  ·  Second Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 108 L. Ed. 2d at 592
"Garcia holds that the limits are structural, not substantive--i.e., that States must find their protection from congressional regulation through the national political process, not through judicially defined spheres of unregulable state activity."
Guam Fresh, Inc. v. Ada  ·  1988-06-14  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 108 S. Ct. at 1355
“Where a comprehensive federal scheme intentionally leaves a portion of the regulated field without controls, then the pre-emptive inference can be drawn.”
Guam Fresh, Inc. v. Joseph F. Ada  ·  1988-06-14  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 108 S. Ct. at 1355
"Where a comprehensive federal scheme intentionally leaves a portion of the regulated field without controls, then the pre-emptive inference can be drawn."