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

Cases pin-citing Healy

Healy v. Beer Institute  ·  1989  ·  40 pinpoint citations from 13 cases, 11 distinct passages.

Legato Vapors LLC v. Cook  ·  2016-06-30  ·  S.D. Indiana  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 275
“[A] state law that has the ‘practical effect’ of regulating commerce occurring wholly outside the State’s borders is invalid under the Commerce Clause.”
Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farm  ·  2012-04-09  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  pin 491 U.S. at 324
“[A] state law that has the ‘practical effect’ of regulating commerce occurring wholly outside that State’s borders is invalid under the Commerce Clause.”
Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch  ·  2012-03-22  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 275
"[A] state law that has the `practical effect' of regulating commerce occurring wholly outside that State's borders is invalid under the Commerce Clause."
Brown v. Hovatter  ·  2009-03-27  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 275
"This Court long has recognized that this affirmative grant of authority to Congress also encompasses an implicit or `dormant' limitation on the authority of the States to enact legislation affecting interstate commerce"
Midwest Title Loans, Inc. v. Ripley  ·  2009-03-24  ·  S.D. Indiana  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 275
“[A] state law that has the ‘practical effect’ of regulating commerce occurring wholly outside the state’s borders is invalid under the Commerce Clause.”
Brooks v. Vassar  ·  2006-09-11  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 275
"This Court long has recognized that this affirmative grant of authority to Congress also encompasses an implicit or ‘dor- mant’ limitation on the authority of the States to enact legislation affecting interstate commerce"
United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority  ·  2006-02-16  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 275
“[T]he Commerce Clause protects against inconsistent legislation arising from the projection of one state regulatory regime into the jurisdiction of another State.”
United Haulers Association, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority  ·  2006-02-16  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 275
"[T]he Commerce Clause protects against inconsistent legislation arising from the projection of one state regulatory regime into the jurisdiction of another State."
R & M Oil & Supply, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. John L. Saunders, Director, Department of Agriculture of the State of Missouri  ·  2002-10-11  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 275
“[T]he practical effect of the statute must be evaluated not only by considering the consequences of the statute itself, but also by considering ... what effect would arise if not one, but many or every, State adopted similar legislation.”
National Solid Wastes Management Association v. George Meyer  ·  1995-09-20  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 275
"[T]o the extent that Seagram holds that retrospective affirmation statutes do not facially violate the Commerce Clause, it is no longer good law."
Trailer Marine Transport Corp. v. Rivera Vazquez  ·  1991-09-26  ·  D. Puerto Rico  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 275
“this Court has followed a consistent practice of striking down state statutes that clearly discriminate against interstate commerce, unless that discrimination is demonstrably justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism”
Wright-Moore Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Ricoh Corporation, Cross-Appellant  ·  1990-08-28  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 275
"the 'Commerce Clause ... precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside of the State's borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State.' "