15 U.S.C. § 1001
Prize-fight films as subjects of interstate or foreign commerce
Every film or other pictorial representation of any prize fight or encounter of pugilists, under whatever name, transported into any State, Territory, or possession, for use, sale, storage, exhibition, or other disposition therein is divested of its character as a subject of interstate or foreign commerce to the extent that it shall upon crossing the boundary of such State, Territory, or possession, be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State, Territory, or possession enacted in the exercise of its police power.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2000–2019 · leading case: Simon v. Value Behavioral Health, Inc., 208 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2000).
Simon v. Value Behavioral Health, Inc., 208 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2000). “; (2) Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1001 ; (3) the Clayton Act, codified at 15 U.”
Prescott v. Slide Fire Solutions, LP (D. Nev. 2019). “21 As detailed above in the Court’s discussion about 15 U.S.C. § 1001 (a)(2), the Ileto court 22 held that statutes codifying general tort theories of negligence and public nuisance may not 23 serve as predicate statutes.”
Coleman v. Assurant, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 2d 862 (D. Nev. 2007). “067 and the McCarran-Fer-guson Act (“MFA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. However, the Court finds that the Nevada Revised Statutes that Plaintiff cites are not applicable in this instance and therefore that the FAA is not reverse preempted.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.