Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig

8 Citing briefs

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

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed November 1, 2010

    ’” Id. at 660-61 (quoting Baldwin, 294 U.S. at 524).15 15 Subsequently, Wisconsin amended its law so that landfills could accept waste from jurisdictions even if they did not have the approved recycling standards, so long as those jurisdictions followed similar standards when handling waste bound for Wisconsin. The Seventh Circuit again rejected the Wisconsin statute, stating that Wisconsin could not discriminate against out-of-state waste that was “identical” to waste inside Wisconsin based on how the out-of-state waste were treated before it arrived in Wisconsin.

  2. Janes et al v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 86 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing The Complaint With Prejudice.. Document

    Filed August 23, 2013

    Indeed, it is the very basis for the constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act itself, NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 31 (1937), and has long been recognized by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Baldwin, 294 U.S. at 527 (―Neither the power to tax nor the police power may be used by the state of destination with the aim and effect of establishing an economic barrier against competition with … the labor of its residents‖); H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 336 U.S. at 537-38 (―Our system, fostered by the Commerce Clause, is that every farmer and every craftsmen shall be encouraged to produce by the certainty that he will have free access to every market in the Nation….‖).

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

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed November 1, 2010

    If every state could penalize out-of-state activities tangentially connected with a product imported into its territory just because it believed those activities emit GHGs, it would “invite a speedy end of our national solidarity.” Baldwin, 294 U.S. at 523.

  4. The People of the State of New York by Eric T. Schneiderman,, Respondent,v.Maurice R. Greenberg, et al., Appellants.

    Brief

    Filed May 3, 2016

    A state may adopt regulations that control its own market, but it may not reach into other states and regulate conduct that occurs wholly in those states. See, e.g., Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511, 521 (1935) (“New York has no power to project its legislation into Vermont.”); Sam Francis Found. v. Christies, Inc., 784 F.3d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (invalidating Cali- fornia statute that regulated “sales that take place outside California” because the court “easily conclude[d] that the [law] . . . violates the dormant Commerce Clause”). Allowing the Attorney General to obtain nationwide injunctive relief would violate this core prohibition.

  5. Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d Oies du Quebec et al v. Kamala J Harris et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 116

    Filed June 13, 2014

    Consider: “A product may not be sold in California if it is the result of [insert the conduct of out-of- state businesses that the legislature might like to regulate, e.g., housing farm animals in cages or not providing workers the same “suitable seating” that California’s IWC Wage Orders require].” As Judge Smith and six of his colleagues on the Ninth Circuit recently wrote, laws like § 25982 represent “California’s clear attempt to project its authority into other states.” Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 740 F.3d 507, 519 (9th Cir. 2014) (dissenting from denial of en banc review); see also Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511, 524 (1935) (explaining that State may not “condition importation upon proof of a satisfactory wage scale in factory or shop”).10 The complaint properly alleges: “As applied to Plaintiffs, the practical effect of section 25982 would be to impose a complete ban on Plaintiffs’ wholesome, unadulterated, USDA-certified duck products from sale in California based solely on conduct that takes place entirely outside the state.” (SAC ¶ 8.) The conduct that California says the out-of-state Plaintiffs may not engage in if they want access to the California market, i.e., force feeding, has nothing to do with preventing cruelty to any duck in California as it occurs “wholly outside the boundaries” of this State.

  6. Estate of Robert Graham et al v. Sothebys Inc

    REPLY In Support Of Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case 17

    Filed February 27, 2012

    Defendants therefore have the same lack of connection to California that the defendants in Midwest Title and Park West had with the regulating states: they engaged in out-of-state transactions in which one of the participants was a resident of the regulating state.8 Under Plaintiffs’ own reasoning, therefore, the CRRA cannot be applied to the non-California Defendants in the present cases. Louisiana, there was “no doubt” that Louisiana could “not regulate” the price received by the Tennessee producer), aff’d 416 U.S. 922 (1974); Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511, 521-23 (1935) (New York had no power to regulate the price paid to Vermont milk sellers for milk that was produced and sold in Vermont, and then transported into New York, nor did New York have the power to prohibit the sale of such milk in New York); see also Dean Foods Co. v. Brancel, 187 F.3d 609, 619 (7th Cir. 1999) (“the sales indisputably occurred in Illinois”: “the product actually arrived in Illinois” and “it was only at that point, when the necessary formalities of contract law had taken place, that title, possession, and risk of loss passed”); In re National Century Fin. Enters., Inc., 755 F. Supp. 2d 857, 882 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (“[T]he ‘commerce’ or ‘conduct’ reached by the Securities Act is the securities transaction ….”) (quotations in original).

  7. Sam Francis Foundation et al v. Christies Inc

    REPLY in support of Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case 15

    Filed February 27, 2012

    Defendants therefore have the same lack of connection to California that the defendants in Midwest Title and Park West had with the regulating states: they engaged in out-of-state transactions in which one of the participants was a resident of the regulating state.8 Under Plaintiffs’ own reasoning, therefore, the CRRA cannot be applied to the non-California Defendants in the present cases. Louisiana, there was “no doubt” that Louisiana could “not regulate” the price received by the Tennessee producer), aff’d 416 U.S. 922 (1974); Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511, 521-23 (1935) (New York had no power to regulate the price paid to Vermont milk sellers for milk that was produced and sold in Vermont, and then transported into New York, nor did New York have the power to prohibit the sale of such milk in New York); see also Dean Foods Co. v. Brancel, 187 F.3d 609, 619 (7th Cir. 1999) (“the sales indisputably occurred in Illinois”: “the product actually arrived in Illinois” and “it was only at that point, when the necessary formalities of contract law had taken place, that title, possession, and risk of loss passed”); In re National Century Fin. Enters., Inc., 755 F. Supp. 2d 857, 882 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (“[T]he ‘commerce’ or ‘conduct’ reached by the Securities Act is the securities transaction ….”) (quotations in original).

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

    OPPOSITION

    Filed December 17, 2010

    Finally, plaintiffs’ argument should also be rejected because it is permeated by erroneous factual assertions. Plaintiffs assert that “[t]he LCFS regulation . . . penalizes out-of-state corn ethanol producers who do not follow CARB’s favored production methods, by assigning their 21 See S.D. Myers, Inc. v. City and County of SF, 253 F.3d 461, 467 (9th Cir. 2001) (San Francisco’s requirement for its contractors to provide domestic partner benefits was not an extraterritorial regulation.) 22 Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 582 (1986)(“[ f]orcing a merchant to seek regulatory approval in one State before undertaking a transaction in another directly regulates interstate commerce”); Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511, 521 (1935) (New York has no power to project its legislation into Vermont by regulating the price to be paid in that state for milk acquired there.) 23 Plaintiffs’ reliance on Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n v. Meyer, 165 F.3d 1151, 1154 (7th Cir. 1999) is equally in error.