§Why CasetextPricing

Kwong et al v. Bloomberg et al

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment. and in Oppositon to Defendants' and Intervenor's Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Document

73 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 27,840 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

  2. District of Columbia et al. v. Heller

    554 U.S. 570 (2008)   Cited 3,466 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding it irrelevant to the constitutionality of D.C.'s "handgun" ban that the law allowed citizens the possession of substitutes, like "long guns"

  3. McDonald v. City of Chicago

    561 U.S. 742 (2010)   Cited 2,281 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Second Amendment applies to the states, through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment

  4. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n

    558 U.S. 310 (2010)   Cited 1,590 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disclaimer and disclosure requirements are subject to exacting scrutiny

  5. Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n

    432 U.S. 333 (1977)   Cited 4,437 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that North Carolina's statute banning state grading of apples was discriminatory even though six other states also had no state grading

  6. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.

    429 U.S. 252 (1977)   Cited 4,288 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs need show only that "a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision," because, after all, "[r]arely can it be said that a legislature or administrative body operating under a broad mandate made a decision motivated solely by a single concern, or even that a particular purpose was the ‘dominant’ or ‘primary’ one."

  7. Nordlinger v. Hahn

    505 U.S. 1 (1992)   Cited 1,693 times
    Holding that the legislature need not "actually articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification"

  8. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman

    455 U.S. 363 (1982)   Cited 2,029 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff organization "has had to devote significant resources to identify and counteract the defendant's" illegal practices was sufficient to confer standing to the organization in its own right at the pleading stage

  9. Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents

    457 U.S. 496 (1982)   Cited 1,712 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs suing under § 1983 are not required to have exhausted state administrative remedies

  10. Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.

    486 U.S. 750 (1988)   Cited 1,028 times
    Holding that a statute "placing unbridled discretion in the hands of a government official or agency" is unconstitutional

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,775 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1341 - Taxes by States

    28 U.S.C. § 1341   Cited 1,867 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting federal judicial restraints on the collection of state taxes

  13. Section 134-2 - Permits to acquire

    Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-2   Cited 13 times

    (a) No person shall acquire the ownership of a firearm, whether usable or unusable, serviceable or unserviceable, modern or antique, registered under prior law or by a prior owner or unregistered, either by purchase, gift, inheritance, bequest, or in any other manner, whether procured in the State or imported by mail, express, freight, or otherwise, until the person has first procured from the chief of police of the county of the person's place of business or, if there is no place of business, the

  14. Section 14-404 - [Repealed]

    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-404   Cited 7 times

    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-404 Repealed by 2023 N.C. Sess. Laws 8,s. 2-a, eff. 3/29/2023, and applies to pistols sold, given away, transferred, purchased, or received on or after that date. Prosecutions for offenses committed before the effective date of this section are not abated or affected by this section, and the statutes that would be applicable but for this section remain applicable to those prosecutions. Amended by 2016 N.C. Sess. Laws 77,s. 9-a, eff. 7/1/2016. Amended by 2015 N.C. Sess. Laws 195