Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Con Law final cases
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| HP HOOD AND SONS V. DUMON, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE | (DCC) "No MA Milk in NY" Restricting export of goods or resources to export from within the state only in order to benefit local industries and consumers violates DCC. Local economic advantage by burdening IC not ok w/o legit health or safety purpose |
| CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY | (DCC) "No out of state waste" state laws may not discriminate on their face against out of articles of commerce in favor of in-state interest. PROTECTIONIST/DISCRIMINATORY (on its face) |
| HUGHES V. OKLAHOMA | (DCC) "minnows case" state law discrim on face = state has burden to show that local benefits and no non-discrim alternatives available OK had other conservation measures available |
| MAINE V. TAYLOR | (DCC) "no live baitfish (golden shiners)" states have general police power: regulate matters of legit local concern even if affect IC. |
| LOREN J PIKE V. BRUCE CHURCH, INC. | (DCC) " cantaloupe packing" BALANCING TEST: statute is invalid if burden on IC outweighs (1) putative local benefits, and (2) no reasonably adequate non-discrim alternative available. $200k for new plant in AZ for AZ cantaloupe reputation NOT OK |
| SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPT V. BARNWELL BROS | (DCC) "no heavy wide trucks" if burden on IC affects in state and out of state persons, court is more likely to uphold. weight limitation = legislative issue; law burden both in state and out of state truck drivers |
| SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO V. ARIZONA | (DCC) "train car limit" determine whether state law violates DCC: balance burden on IC against health and safety interests of the state. |
| DEAN MILK CO V. CITY OF MADISON, WI | (DCC) "milk pasteurization distance limit" State cant enact law that burdens IC if reasonable, non-discrim alternative available (adequate to conserve legit local int) City ordinance pose undue discrim burden on IC when there are reas. non-discrim alts. |
| CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORP OF DE V. RAYMOND KASSEL | (DCC) "Too Long Double Trucks" If safety reasons for bar certain acts outweigh burden on IC, regulation will be valid. IA truck length limit unconst burden IC w/o sig. countervailing safety interest. burden too high (π either shuttle trucks or go around) |
| BIBB V. NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC. | (DCC) "contour mudguards" Local non-discrim safety measures that place unconst burden on IC violate DCC. Safety benefit of diff. mudguard minimal. Too burdensome. |
| WESTERN & SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE, CO. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CA | (DCC EXCEPTION) "CA retaliatory insurance tax" Congressional consent exception. Congress declared regulation and taxation by States of ins. bus. = in the public interest. |
| REEVES, INC. V. WILLIAM STAKE | (DCC EXCEPTION) "OUR cement first" MARKET PARTICIPANT XCPTN: market participant instead of market regulator may favor in state. States may operate freely in market - freedom from fed. constraints. |
| BARRON V. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE | (BOR) "wharf case" BOR applies only to fed gov, not state or local gov. 5th Am takings clause not applied to state gov. C not for government of indiv states (states have own C) |
| CIVIL RIGHTS CASES: US V. STANLEY | (BOR - STATE ACTION DOCTRINE) "No blacks inn/theater" STATE ACTION DOCTRINE: Cngrss can't pass laws prohibiting discrim by private ctzns under 14 AM (only state action). 14 AM only gives Cngrss power to regulate STATE actions (prvt indivs=reg for states) |
| MARSH V. AL | (PBLC FXN XCTPN TO STATE ACTION) "Corp. town" Private entity that acts like gov't body & perform PBLC FXN subject to C and cant restrict fundamental libs. running city = public fxn, must comply w/C |
| JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. | (PBLC FXN EXCPTN TO ST ACTN) "Private Elec." Actions of prvt entity not st actn unless suff. close nexus bw State and challenged action. (prvt actn immune from 14 AM). Utitlies not trad. state activity, termin of service not suff. connected to State. |
| TERRY V. ADAMS | (STATE ACTION-ELECTIONS) "no blacks-bird election" Elections = trad exclusive state fxn; prvt party controlling outcomes is state actn and subj to 15 AM. Barred from excluding blacks from election. |
| EVANS V. NEWTON | (PRVT PROP 4 PBLC PRPS) "park discrimination" operating park = pblc fxn bc services rendered are municipal in nature. Park serves entire community and city entwined with managing park |
| SHELLEY V. KRAEMER | (BOR-ENTANGLEMENT XCPTN) "no blacks property covenant" Judicial enforcement of private agreement = state action and impermissible. Ct. enforced racially restrictive covenant - unlawful. |
| 1961-BURTON V. WILMINGTON PARKING AUTHORITY | (BOR-ENTANGLEMENT XCTPN) "no blacks prkng lot/coffee shop" When state becomes so entangled in private party action that state and party have "symbiotic relationship," then state action. Bldg public owned, used, funded...mutual benefits. |
| MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS | (GOV REGULATION AND ENTANGLEMENT XCTPN) "private lodge alcohol lic." Obtaining state liquor lic. NOT state action under 14 AM bc state must have sig involvment in discrim in order to violate. state entity doesnt enforce prvt entity discrim policies. |
| ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA | (SUBSTANTIVE DP) "no NY ins. in LA" 14 AM liberty=rights(free from phys restrnt, enjoy faculties, live'n'work, earn $ - freedom to K for these purposes). LA cant prevent NY from K with LA cit. |
| LOCHNER V. NEW YORK | (SUBSTANTIVE DP) "no baking past 60/10" Must be subst. relaitonship bw statute and goals. sub dp prevent state leg. from enact laws that invade indiv freedom to K. Purely labor law w/o legit health purpose. Interfere w/frdm to K only for valid police purp |
| WEST COAST HOTEL V. PARRISH | (SUBSTNTV DP) "maid made more" Reg. reas. related to subject and adopted in interests of community valid under DPcl. Min. wage law interfere with frdm of K, but state int. in protect wmn hlth and obtn living wage pass ratl basis test. |
| WILLIAMSON V. LEE OPTICAL | (ECON SBSTNTV DP) "optical lic. required" Econ leg. upheld as long as rat'l basis. Rat'l health measure (possible cngrss concld scrips needed from med. xprt.) reasonable objv, rat'l basis for legislation. |
| MA BOARD OF RETIREMENT V. MURGIA | (AGE CLASSIFICATION) "over the hill cops" Age class. subj. to rat'l basis test: law must be rat'ly related to legit gov purpose. Link bw over 50 and poor phys. health rational. Purpose: protect public, ensure only phys fit can do job = rat'ly related |
| SAN ANTONIO SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ | (WELATH DISCRIM) "poor taxed, poor schools" Poor NOT subject class, so subject to rat'l basis test. No evid that poorest fams lived in dists or that poor subj to history of purposeful un= trtmnt. |
| ROMER V. EVANS | (RBT-LEGIT PURPOSE) "unprotected gays" desire to harm pol. unpop. group NOT legit gov. purpose. Law making it harder for one group of cits to seek aid from gov=denial of EP. |
| US RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ | (RBT-LEGIT PURPOSE) "career RR retire" RBT requires plausible reasons for challenged legis re:less of actual reasons. Legis enact to benefit career RR workers. Possible Congress reason sufficient to uphold. |
| RAILWAY EXPRES AGENCY V. NY | (RBT-Reas. Relationship) "No car ads" Legislatures may proceed one step at a time & defer complete regulation to the future. Legit purpose=traffic safety. Plausible concern for city=distracting ads, under-inc but OK. |
| NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY V. BEAZER | (RBT-REAS RELATIONSHIP) "No methodone recovery" Exclusionary scheme OK as long as not class. bc of unpopular trait or affiliation. regulate police power (health, safety, welfare)=legit obj. Class. relative to positions where safety VERY important. |
| CITY OF CLEBURNE, TX V. CLEBURNE LIVING CETNER, INC. | (RBT-REAS RELATIONSHIP) "Retard House" Mental retardation NOT quasi-suspect class, so RBT. Legit int.=providing for mentally retarded. Private bias NOT legit gov. purpose. |
| US DEPT OF AGRICULTURE V. MORENO | (RBT-REAS RELATIONSHIP) "hungry hippies" Challenged class. must rationally further legit gov purpose. Purpose of discrim against unpopular group NOT legit purpose. Unrelated ppl living together NOT relate to policy to provide for needy. |
| REED V. REED | (GENDER DISCRIM) "Estate adMENistrators only" 14 AM EPC applies to women. Admins of estates cant be named in a way that discrim bw sexes. Statute not satisfy RBT bc no rat'l way to pursue legit state int. |
| FRONTIERO V. RICHARDSON | (GENDER CLASS.) "Air Force wife" Gender-based class. inherently suspect and subject to intermediate scrutiny. Burdens on particular sex against notion of indiv. responsibility. No purpose other than admin convenience. |
| CRAIG V. BOREN | (GENDER CLASS.) "Ladies thirst" Gender class. must serve important govt interest and be subst related to ahcieve those ints. obj:traffic safety. BUT, class. not justified - statistics dont show dangerousness |
| US V. VA | (GENDER CLASS.) "no girls mil. school" State must show that class. serves important govt obj AND discrim means subst related to objs. Proper remedy for unconst exclusion aims to elim discrim effect of the part and bar like discrim in future." |
| GEDULIG V. AIELLO | (GENDER DISCRIM) "no pregnancy disability" Discrim on basis of pregnancy NOT EP violation. NO evid that distinction designed to be invidious discrim. RBT-state's legit int in solvent ins system rat'l related to means chosen. |
| ORR V. ORR | (GENDER CLASS. BENEFIT WOMEN) "alimony equality" outright ban on alimony awards against women NOT subst related to obj of compens women for discrim during marriage. Gender class. may NOT be justified on stereotypes |
| CALIFANO V. WEBSTER | (GENDER CLASS.BENEFIT WOMEN AS REMEDY) "SS ins. benefit women" Gender class bnfting women by reduce disparity in econ condition bw men & women permissible if remedy prior discrim. sufficient govt interest, Cngrss desire to redress disparate trtmnt of wmen |
| PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR OF MA V. FEENEY | (DISCRIM PURPOSE) "Vets better" Discrim purpose implies more than knwldg of consequences; gov act must be taken bc of adverse effect on ident.able group. Law=facially gender neutral. rewrd vets & promote servc=legit gov obj. knowldg insuf to prv prps disc |
| NGUYEN V. INS | (ILLEGITIMACY) "viet felon" Gender-based clas. must be subs related to acheive important gov obj. Gndr-clss favor mothers OK bc bio diff. bw men and women. gov has interest in ensuring development of meaningful relatioship bw parent&child. subst related. |
| DREDD SCOTT V. SANFORD | (RACE DISCRIM) "slaves=property" CITIZEN in C not include slaves. slave suboordinate and inferior. "all men created =" not intended to apply to slaves. different plight than indians. law prohibit slavery unconst. |
| PLESSY V. FERGUSON | (RACE DISCRIM) "separate but = train" Separate but = facilities const. social prejudice cant be overcome by legislation. |
| BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION I | (RACE DISCRIM IN SCHOOLS) "sep but = NOT OK" States may not seg public schools based on race. Overrule PLESSY. pub ed most important state and local gov fnxn. Seg solely based on race deprive minority children and give feeling of inferiority. |
| BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION II | (SCHOOL SEG AND REMEDIES) "remedy sep but =" |
| KOREMATSU V. US | (STRICT SCRUTINY) "Jap curfew" Restrictions depriving cits of civil rights of single racial group subject to strict scrutiny. Compelling need to prevent espionage and sabotage, no practical and rapid way for mil to distinguish loyal from disloyal. |
| LOVING V. VA | (RACIAL CLASS. BURDEN WHITES AND MINORITIES) "mix marriage OK" Legis restrict freedom to marry solely on race class. violate 14 AM EPC. =Application doesnt immunize from strict scrutiny. Intent:preserve integrity of whites so invidious, discrim, not legit |
| WA V. DAVIS | (PROOF OF DISCRIM PURP) "Test 21" Facially neutral law declared unconst if discrim motive. Exam not intended to be discrim, enhance verbal ability of employees & further legit gov int. |
| MCKLESKY V. KEMP | (PROOF OF DISCRIM PURP) "Discrim death penalty" Discrim purpose must be shown, implies more than intent as volition or as awareness of consequences for EP challenge. no proof of discrim purpose. |
| VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS V. MHDC | (DISCRIM PURP) "low income housing" f discrim purpose was motivating factor in decision, judicial defense no longer warranted. 8 factors to determine invidious discrim purp p.798 |
| COOPER V. AARON | "Little Rock 9" State gov officials bound to comply with SC rulings/orders based on SC interp of C. BROWN decision binds states/officials under Supremacy Cl. refusal to comply=violate oath to uphold C. |
| PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST NO. 1 | "Race class. to =ize schools" Race as factor in school assignments violates EPC unless remedy or one of many factors. Satisfy strict scrutiny if narrowly tailored to meet compelling gov int. C not violated by racial imbalance w/o more. |
| REGENTS OF UC V. BAKKE | "Racial set-aside for med school" Gov imposed race class. must be narrowly tailored to further compelling gov int. May use race as one factor, but not as deciding. failed strict scrutiny even tho compelling interest to have diversity. |
| RICHMOND V. CROSON | (STRICT SCRUTINY) "non-discrim against Kors) Mere recitation that class. is aimed at remedying prior discrim is insufficient. City had no evid of past racial discrim. by gen Kors to have compelling int. in not using tax $ to support discrim by private frm |
| GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER | (AFFIRMATIVE ACTION) "racial factor" Racial class. must be narrowly tailored to achieve compelling gov. interest. Policy strives for educ and social diversity to enhance educ benefits. No mechanical formula, individualized review. Race one of many factors |
| GRATZ V. BOLLINGER | (AFFIRMATIVE ACTION) "Race Points" Univ. admission must take race into account, if at all, only on indiv basis. Race class may be used to remedy past discrim. Automatic point assignment for race not OK. |
| GRAHAM V. RICHARDSON | (ALIENAGE) "disabled aliens" State's desire to preserve welfare benefits for cits NOT justify exclusion of resident aliens from receiving portion. Alienage class. inherently suspect&subject to strict scrutiny. Saving welfare cost not justify invidious dis |
| FOLEY V. CONNELIE | (ALIENAGE) "no alien officials" limit police to US cit only is consistent with C. Ratl relatioship bw interest protected and limiting class. Exclusion from democrat process OK. ratl relation bw citship and position. important pos., influence pub pol. |
| AMBACH V. NORWICK | (ALIENAGE) "pub school teachers within "gov fxn" exception to strict scrutiny requirement for alienage class. C requires only that cit rqrmnt for teaching in pub school bear ratl relat to legit state int. Restriction carefully framed. Women dont want cit. |
| PLYLER V DOE | (ALIENAGE) "alien school kids" state must have substantial state int in order to deny free public school benefit to alien children. Law aimed at w/holding benefit from class of ppl w/no control of their unlawful conduct. denial of educ unreasonable. |
Created by:
DJGottlieb
Popular Law sets