Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
5 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Additions to Con Law 5
|
|
|
|
How was the state law upheld in Pike v. Bruce Church. TOPC: If a law is NON-discriminatory FACTS: 1. Bruce Church, Inc. (P) Challenged Arizona (D) law that prevented the transportation of uncrated cantaloupes within the state on ground it violated Commerce Clause.
|
2. Balancing Test: If a state law is determined to be non-discriminatory—b/c it even handedly treats out of staters and instaters alike, the state law will be upheld so long as the benefits to the government outweigh the burdens on interstate commerce.
|
|
|
What is the application of the Balancing test for nondiscriminatory DCC for Bibb v. Navajo [the mud flaps case]
|
i. Application of Test: 1. The state interest was highway safety and it passed the use of mudflaps. This regulation was invalidated b/c it created a greater burden on interstate commerce than a government benefit b/c the measure was not safer than other counters—in fact probably more dangerous since it had braking problems. See Bibb v. Navajo [unconstitutional NON-discriminatory law] a. DCC has the effect of creating uniformity and punishing outlier states. Is this a good thing?
|
|
|
What is the application of the Balancing test for nondiscriminatory DCC for Kassel [the uniform truck size for safety case]
|
2. If the safety interests of a state’s law are insignificant compared to the burden put on interstate commerce, the law will be in violation of the DCC. a. The use of large trucks would not increase the safety b/c greater number of smaller trucks would be needed to carry the same amount of goods out in the road. The burden on commerce would that big trucks would have to unload unto another trailer or circumvent the state. See Kassel [unconstitutional]
|
|
|
What is the application of the Balancing test for nondiscriminatory DCC for CTS [the difficulty for out of state corporations to buy out in state corporations without minority shareholder support case]
|
3. The low burden placed on interstate commerce of buying out corporations is outweighed by a state’s legitimate interest in making sure that its corporate law functions appropriately; by having a purchaser get approval from 51% of disinterested shareholders. See CTS [NON-discriminatory law is constitutional]
|
