Citation network
Maine Vs. Taylor
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 1986
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
-
U.S. 131 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Maine v. TaylorSearch
-
U.S. 131 (1986) Maine v. TaylorSearch
-
is constitutional. The federal statute under which appellee was convicted did not waive the requirement of Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
-
JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. Once again, a little fish has caused a commotion. See Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
-
TVA v. HillSearch
-
Cappaert v. UnitedSearch
-
of live baitfish. The District Court found the statute constitutional, and denied the motion to dismiss. United States v. TaylorSearch
-
agreeing with Taylor that the underlying state statute impermissibly restricts interstate trade. United States v. TaylorSearch
-
Although statutes authorizing appeals as of right to this Court are strictly construed, see, e.g., Silkwood v. Kerr-McGeeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 870 , 465 U. S. 879 (1984), quoting Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. JacobsenSearch
-
S. 73 , 362 U. S. 94 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting), in turn quoting American Security & Trust Co. v. DistrictSearch
-
to satisfy the constitutional requirement of genuine adversity. Bryant v. YellenSearch
-
see Page 477 U. S. 137 also, e.g., Diamond v. CharlesSearch
-
the State will be bound by the conclusive adjudication that its import ban is unconstitutional. See, e.g., Stoll v. GottliebSearch
-
have no legally cognizable interest in the prosecutorial decisions of the Federal Government, cf., e.g., Diamond v. CharlesSearch
-
Linda R. S. v. RichardSearch
-
a State clearly has a legitimate interest in the continued enforceability of its own statutes, see Diamond v. CharlesSearch
-
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. PuertoSearch
-
Pike v. BruceSearch
-
S. 142 (1970), statutes in the second group are subject to more demanding scrutiny. The Court explained in Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
-
and that this purpose could not be served as well by available nondiscriminatory means. See also e.g., Sporhase v. NebraskaSearch
-
Hunt v. WashingtonSearch
-
Dean Milk Co. v. MadisonSearch
-
ban discriminates on its face against interstate trade, it should be subject to the strict requirements of Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
-
the States to engage in regulation that the Commerce Clause would otherwise forbid. See, e.g., Southern Pacific Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. WunnickeSearch
-
United States v. PublicSearch
-
of live baitfish thus is constitutional only if it satisfies the requirements ordinarily applied under Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 273 , 456 U. S. 291 (1982), quoting DeMarco v. UnitedSearch
-
decide factual questions de novo, reversing any findings they would have made differently. See, e.g., Anderson v. BessemerSearch
-
Zenith Radio Corp. v. HazeltineSearch
-
of review long has been applied to nonguilt findings of fact by district courts in criminal cases. See Campbell v. UnitedSearch
-
a constitutional case, or because the factual findings at issue may determine the outcome of the case. See Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
Philadelphia v. NewSearch
-
Minnesota v. CloverSearch
-
to grant review by writ of certiorari. See Doran v. SalemSearch
-
El Paso v. SimmonsSearch
-
Two of these types of parasites were found in appellee's confiscated shipment of golden shiners. See United States v. TaylorSearch
-
id. at 765, the Court of Appeals cited Bacchus Imports Ltd. v. DiasSearch
-
U. S. 263 (1984), and Boston Stock Exchange v. StateSearch
-
may not fight depletion of its population of natural minnows by prohibiting their commercial exportation, see Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
-
the conservation program for no apparent reason other than that they lived and voted in other States. See Philadelphia v. NewSearch
-
Robertson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Maine v. TaylorSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial