Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Edgar Vs. Mite Corp.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 23, 1982

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

66 entries 4 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Shaffer Vs. Heitner US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1977
  2. Freeman Vs. Hewitt US Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1946
  3. Perez Vs. Ledesma US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
    Relied / Followed
  4. Dombrowski Vs. Pfister US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1965
  5. Edgar v. MITE
    Search
  6. Corp. - 457 U.S. 624 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Edgar v. MITE
    Search
  7. Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982) Edgar v. MITE
    Search
  8. burdens on interstate commerce that are excessive in light of the local interests the Act purports to further. Pike v. Bruce
    Search
  9. joined Parts I, II, III, and IV. POWELL, J., joined Parts I and V-B. STEVENS and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined Parts I, II, and v. POWELL
    Search
  10. to make a tender offer. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed sub nom. MITE Corp. v. Dixon
    Search
  11. with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility . . . ,' Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul
    Search
  12. law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' Hines v. Davidowitz
    Search
  13. Jones v. Rath
    Search
  14. Accord, De Canas v. Bica
    Search
  15. Ray v. Atlantic
    Search
  16. Piper v. Chris-Craft
    Search
  17. S. 633 There is no question that, in imposing these requirements, Congress intended to protect investors. Piper v. Chris-Craft
    Search
  18. Rondeau v. Mosinee
    Search
  19. and sought to avoid it. Great Page 457 U. S. 638 Western United Corp. v. Kidwell
    Search
  20. F.2d at 494. v. The
    Search
  21. t least since Cooley v. Board
    Search
  22. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Cottrell
    Search
  23. U. S. 366 , 424 U. S. 370 -371 (1976), quoting Freeman v. Hewitt
    Search
  24. Pike v. Bruce
    Search
  25. Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137 , 397 U. S. 142 (1970), citing Huron Cement Co. v. Detroit
    Search
  26. direct regulation is prohibited. Shafer v. Farmers
    Search
  27. Grain Co., 268 U. S. 189 , 268 U. S. 199 (1925). See also Pike v. Bruce
    Search
  28. laws against Commerce Clause challenges on several occasions. Hall v. Geiger-Jones
    Search
  29. Caldwell v. Sioux
    Search
  30. Merrick v. N.W
    Search
  31. Hall v. Geiger-Jones
    Search
  32. Leroy v. Great
    Search
  33. and interstate commerce in securities transactions generated by tender offers would be thoroughly stifled. In Shafer v. Farmers
    Search
  34. Hughes v. Alexandria
    Search
  35. whether or not the commerce has effects Page 457 U. S. 643 within the State. In Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona
    Search
  36. commerce, including commerce wholly outside the State, it must be held invalid as were the laws at issue in Shafer v. Farmers
    Search
  37. Grain Co. and Southern Pacific. B The Illinois Act is also unconstitutional under the test of Pike v. Bruce
    Search
  38. a third party, and do not themselves implicate the internal affairs of the target company. Great Western United Corp. v. Kidwell
    Search
  39. known to the offeror even if disclosure were not otherwise required. See, e.g., Sonesta International Hotels Corp. v. Wellington
    Search
  40. as having granted MITE permanent immunity from future proceedings brought under the Illinois statute. In Steffel v. Thompson
    Search
  41. Id. at 415 U. S. 469 -470 (quoting Perez v. Ledesma
    Search
  42. U.S. at 415 U. S. 470 (quoting Perez v. Ledesma
    Search
  43. in our governmental structure only if it recognizes the limitations on its own legitimate authority. United States v. New
    Search
  44. In Liner v. Jafco
    Search
  45. The petitioners plainly have 'a substantial stake in the judgment . . . ,' Fiswick v. United
    Search
  46. court to preserve its jurisdiction pending a final decision on the constitutionality of the statute. United States v. Mine
    Search
  47. Doran v. Salem
    Search
  48. United States v. Mine
    Search
  49. has not yet begun. If his view were accepted, an injunction against a threatened criminal proceeding, see Dombrowski v. Pfister
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Edgar v. MITE
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial