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;
9 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Fox v Robbins
|
The High Court ruled that the fees were unconstitutional.
|
|
|
James v South Australia
|
The High Court ruled that, while the law did not discriminate between internal and external producers, the order was unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales (Banking Case)
|
The High Court ruled that, while the law was not discriminatory, it was not reasonably justified and unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Cole v Whitfield
|
The High Court ruled that the constitution only bans discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind. The regulations on goods were acceptable.
|
|
|
Bath v Alston
|
The High Court ruled that the fees were protectionist and unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Castlemaine Tooheys v South Australia
|
The High Court ruled that the requirements severely limited foreign retailers and constituted protectionism, despite not being the intent.
|
|
|
Betfair v Western Australia
|
The High Court ruled that the laws had a discriminatory impact as the service in the state was otherwise dominated by one organization.
|
|
|
Barley Board Case
|
The High Court ruled that the restrictions were not discriminatory.
|
|
|
Nationwide News v Wills
|
The High Court ruled that the phrase not only granted physical freedom, but also modern forms of inter-state communication (eg: phone, email, etc.).
|
