Citation network
Cts Corp. Vs. Dynamics Corp. of America
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 21, 1987
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
-
CTS Corp. v. DynamicsSearch
-
Corp. of America - 481 U.S. 69 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court CTS Corp. v. DynamicsSearch
-
Corp. of America, 481 U.S. 69 (1987) CTS Corp. v. DynamicsSearch
-
violates the Commerce Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed, adopting the holding of the plurality opinion in Edgar v. MITESearch
-
motion for declaratory relief. 637 F.Supp. 389 (ND Ill.1986). Relying on JUSTICE WHITE's plurality opinion in Edgar v. MITESearch
-
claim that the Williams Act preempts the Indiana Act. The court looked first to the plurality opinion in Edgar v. MITESearch
-
court next addressed Dynamic's Commerce Clause challenge to the Act. Applying the balancing test articulated in Pike v. BruceSearch
-
with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility. . . ,' Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSearch
-
law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' Hines v. DavidowitzSearch
-
Ray v. AtlanticSearch
-
passage, these transactions were not covered by the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. See Piper v. Chris-CraftSearch
-
B The Indiana Act differs in major respects from the Illinois statute that the Court considered in Edgar v. MITESearch
-
id. at 457 U. S. v. DixonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. at 457 U. S. 637 (quoting Great Western United Corp. v. KidwellSearch
-
Id. at 457 U. S. 639 -640 (quoting MITE Corp. v. DixonSearch
-
Piper v. Chris-CraftSearch
-
the Commerce Clause permits and those regulations that it prohibits. See, e.g., Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. RiceSearch
-
Philadelphia v. NewSearch
-
Exxon Corp. v. GovernorSearch
-
of Maryland, 437 U. S. 117 , 437 U. S. 126 (1978). See Minnesota v. CloverSearch
-
affect interstate commerce by subjecting activities to inconsistent regulations. E.g., Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. NewSearch
-
Edgar v. MITESearch
-
Kassel v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
U. S. 662 , 450 U. S. 671 (1981) (plurality opinion of POWELL, J.). See Southern Pacific Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
Cooley v. BoardSearch
-
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. WoodwardSearch
-
Wheat. 518, 17 U. S. 636 (1819). See First National Bank of Boston v. BellottiSearch
-
Brief for Appellee 21 (quoting Edgar v. MITESearch
-
Together with No. 86-97, Indiana v. DynamicsSearch
-
can assure that shareholders do not suffer from the mismanagement of corporate officers and directors. Cf. Cort v. AshSearch
-
that it is not invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause. While it has become standard practice at least since Pike v. BruceSearch
-
added), as the majority claims. In discussing the legislative history of the Williams Act, the Court, in Piper v. Chris-CraftSearch
-
U. S. 322 , 441 U. S. 336 (1979) (quoting Lacoste v. LouisianaSearch
-
in such securities, Exxon Corp. v. GovernorSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court CTS Corp. v. DynamicsSearch
-
Pike v. BruceSearch
-
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSearch
-
of Congress.' Hines v. DavidowitzSearch
-
See Piper v. Chris-CraftSearch
-
U. S. v. DixonSearch
-
Great Western United Corp. v. KidwellSearch
-
MITE Corp. v. DixonSearch
-
See Minnesota v. CloverSearch
-
E.g., Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. NewSearch
-
of POWELL, J.). See Southern Pacific Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
See First National Bank of Boston v. BellottiSearch
-
Indiana v. DynamicsSearch
-
Cf. Cort v. AshSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial