§Why CasetextPricing

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union et al v. Corey, et al

MEMORANDUM

77 Cited authorities

  1. Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. Cuno

    547 U.S. 332 (2006)   Cited 2,647 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an injury a plaintiff "suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally" is not a cognizable injury-in-fact

  2. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore

    517 U.S. 559 (1996)   Cited 2,852 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a $2 million punitive damages award was "grossly excessive" and therefore exceeded the constitutional limit

  3. Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

    529 U.S. 861 (2000)   Cited 787 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding the absence of an express pre-emption clause “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”

  4. Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs

    471 U.S. 707 (1985)   Cited 1,192 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding local health ordinance not preempted because "the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern"

  5. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n

    505 U.S. 88 (1992)   Cited 891 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "nonapproved state regulation of occupational safety and health issues for which a federal standard is in effect is impliedly preempted" by OSHA's standard

  6. Pacific Gas Elec. v. Energy Resources Comm'n

    461 U.S. 190 (1983)   Cited 1,172 times
    Holding "that the promotion of nuclear power is not to be accomplished ‘at all costs’ "

  7. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.

    397 U.S. 137 (1970)   Cited 1,700 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a statute addresses "a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits"

  8. Oregon Waste Sys., Inc. v. Dep. of Envt'l Qual. of Ore

    511 U.S. 93 (1994)   Cited 688 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a greater surcharge on disposal of in-state waste than on disposal of out-of-state waste facially discriminated against interstate commerce

  9. Jones v. Rath Packing Co.

    430 U.S. 519 (1977)   Cited 1,187 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption is weaker, if triggered at all, where there is not a tradition of state legislation

  10. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly

    533 U.S. 525 (2001)   Cited 506 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a ban on outdoor advertising of smokeless tobacco and cigars within one thousand feet of a school or playground violated the First Amendment

  11. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,024 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

  12. Section 8 - Powers of Congress

    U.S. Const. art. I, § 8   Cited 6,973 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Granting Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence,” to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” and to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

  13. Section 7545 - Regulation of fuels

    42 U.S.C. § 7545   Cited 156 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing creation of credit trading program

  14. Section 95480 - Purpose

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17 § 95480   Cited 12 times

    The purpose of this regulation is to implement a low carbon fuel standard, which will reduce the full fuel-cycle, carbon intensity of the transportation fuel pool used in California, pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health & Safety Code [H&S], section 38500 et seq.). Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 17, § 95480 1. New subarticle 7 (sections 95480-95490) and section filed 1-12-2010; operative 1-12-2010 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4 (Register 2010, No. 3). 2. Repealer