S.C. Hwy. Dept. v. Barnwell Bros

3 Citing briefs

  1. Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland

    MOTION for Summary Judgment City of Oakland's Notice of motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment, and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 5, 2017

    Beyond these narrow categories, “when or if … uniformity is desirable is not a question for courts.” Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 730 F.3d 1070, 1105 (9th Cir. 2013); see also South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros., Inc., 303 U.S. 177, 190 (1938) (Congress may pass “legislation Case 3:16-cv-07014-VC Document 145 Filed 12/05/17 Page 49 of 50 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OAKLAND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OAK #4836-0378-5048 v3 - 38 - CITY’S MSJ AND OPP’N TO OBOT’S MSJ CASE NO. 16-CV-7014-VC designed to secure uniformity … [b]ut that is a legislative, not a judicial function, to be performed in light of the Congressional judgment of what is appropriate regulation of interstate commerce”). Here, the Ordinance does not regulate or impose any burden on railroad (or any other mode of) transportation.

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

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed November 1, 2010

    That provision requiring that California interests are maximized and its burdens minimized underscores the problems inherent in a state regulation that discriminates against transportation fuels from outside California: the LCFS lacks appropriate “political restraints” that normally guide legislation and regulatory action. See South Carolina State Highway Dep’t v. Barnwell Bros., Inc., 303 U.S. 177, 185 n.2 (1938). As the Supreme Court has explained, “[u]nrepresented interests will often bear the brunt of regulations imposed by one State having a significant effect on persons or operations in other States.”

  3. Dunne v. Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint

    Filed July 30, 2007

    i. Count 10: Plaintiff Fails To State A Cause Of Action Under The Dormant Commerce Clause To state a claim under the dormant commerce clause, Plaintiff would need to allege facts supporting a conclusion that the bar exam placed an undue burden on interstate commerce. In examining claims under the dormant commerce clause, courts apply the balancing test articulated by South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros (1938) and Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945): whether the benefits of the state law outweigh the law’s burdens on interstate commerce. Plaintiff has not Case 1:07-cv-11166-DPW Document 5 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 13 of 16 alleged any facts showing that there is any burden on interstate commerce by either the bar exam or Goodridge.