Citation network
New Energy Co. Vs. Limbach
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 31, 1988
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. 269 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court New Energy Co. v. LimbachSearch
-
U.S. 269 (1988) New Energy Company of Indiana v. LimbachSearch
-
but also directly limits the power of the States to discriminate against interstate commerce. See, e.g., Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
-
Welton v. MissouriSearch
-
economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors. Page 486 U. S. 274 See, e.g., Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. DiasSearch
-
state statutes that clearly discriminate against interstate commerce are routinely struck down, see, e.g., Sporhase v. NebraskaSearch
-
Dean Milk Co. v. MadisonSearch
-
the discrimination is demonstrably justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism, see, e.g., Maine v. TaylorSearch
-
case, Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. CottrellSearch
-
Sporhase v. NebraskaSearch
-
ex rel. Douglas, supra, at 458 U. S. 958 , quoting Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
-
tax treatment. That makes no difference for purposes of Commerce Clause analysis. In the leading case of Baldwin v. G.ASearch
-
Id. at 294 U. S. 527 . Similarly, in Hunt v. WashingtonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
se unlawful. See Cottrell, supra, at 424 U. S. 378 . But the case we cited for that proposition, Kane v. NewSearch
-
nor a widespread disadvantage to out-of-state competitors need be shown. For example, in Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. DiasSearch
-
only the former is subject to the limitations of the negative Commerce Clause. See Hughes v. AlexandriaSearch
-
that favor its residents, are of no greater constitutional concern than those of a private business. See Reeves, Inc. v. StakeSearch
-
local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives. See, e.g., Maine v. TaylorSearch
-
may on closer analysis not be so. However it be put, the standards for such justification are high. Cf. Philadelphia v. NewSearch
-
B) was an excessive burden on commerce under the test set forth in Pike v. BruceSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court New Energy Co. v. LimbachSearch
-
New Energy Company of Indiana v. LimbachSearch
-
Maine v. TaylorSearch
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. CottrellSearch
-
of Baldwin v. G.ASearch
-
Hunt v. WashingtonSearch
-
Kane v. NewSearch
-
Commerce Clause. See Hughes v. AlexandriaSearch
-
See Reeves, Inc. v. StakeSearch
-
Cf. Philadelphia v. NewSearch
-
Pike v. BruceSearch
-
Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial