Citation network
Dennis Vs. Higgins
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 20, 1991
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. 439 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Dennis v. HigginsSearch
-
Lynch v. HouseholdSearch
-
not designed to benefit the individual has been implicitly rejected, Page 498 U. S. 440 Boston Stock Exchange v. StateSearch
-
a recognition that it was intended to benefit those who are engaged in interstate commerce, see, e.g., Crutcher v. KentuckySearch
-
claim, but reversed the trial court's allowance of fees and expenses under the common fund doctrine. See Dennis v. StateSearch
-
at 430, 451 N.W.2d at 678. The court relied largely on the reasoning in Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware v. KasselSearch
-
Golden State Transit Corp. v. LosSearch
-
Monell v. NewSearch
-
Chapman v. HoustonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to civil rights or equal protection laws. See Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
For example, in Lynch v. HouseholdSearch
-
Id. at 405 U. S. 552 . See also United States v. PriceSearch
-
of interstate commerce. Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
-
South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. WunnickeSearch
-
this aspect of the Commerce Clause may sue and obtain injunctive and declaratory relief. See, e.g., McKesson Corp. v. DivisionSearch
-
to engage in interstate trade free from restrictive state regulation. In Crutcher v. KentuckySearch
-
Id. at 141 U. S. 57 . Similarly, Western Union Telegraph Co. v. KansasSearch
-
And Garrity v. NewSearch
-
More recently, Boston Stock Exchange v. StateSearch
-
Id. at 429 U. S. 320 , n. 3. Last Term, in Golden State Transit Corp. v. LosSearch
-
no more than express a congressional preference for certain kinds of treatment.' Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
asserts must not be 'too vague and amorphous' to be 'beyond the competence of the judiciary to enforce.' Wright v. RoanokeSearch
-
see also id. at 479 U. S. 433 (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting) (citing Cort v. AshSearch
-
Id. at 493 U. S. 106 . See also Wilder v. VirginiaSearch
-
Morgan v. VirginiaSearch
-
Compare Kraft v. JackaSearch
-
J & J Anderson, Inc. v. ErieSearch
-
and Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware v. KasselSearch
-
F.2d 1139 (CA8), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 (1984), with Continental Illinois Corp. v. LewisSearch
-
Martin-Marietta Corp. v. BendixSearch
-
and Kennecott Corp. v. SmithSearch
-
F.2d 181, 186, n. 5 (CA3 1980). See also Private Truck Council of America, Inc. v. QuinnSearch
-
See The Banks v. TheSearch
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. BarrySearch
-
CTS Corp. v. DynamicsSearch
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. CottrellSearch
-
Cooley v. BoardSearch
-
with federal regulations enacted under the authority of the Commerce Clause. An example of the latter is Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
the dissent relies upon Carter v. GreenhowSearch
-
Hague v. CommitteeSearch
-
of Stone, J.). JUSTICE KENNEDY, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. In Golden State Transit Corp. v. LosSearch
-
of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13. See Lynch v. HouseholdSearch
-
Monell v. NewSearch
-
violations of rights-securing provisions of the Constitution, not power-allocating provisions. See, e.g., Monroe v. PapeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial