The issue presented in this case concerns the application of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution of a state policy favoring its own citizens over citizens of other States in a sale of products owned and manufactured by that State. States that are “market participants” in the buying and selling of goods, as opposed to “market regulator”, are not bound by the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and can favor their in-state businesses. Supreme Court of United States. 16-1466 In the Supreme Court of the United States MARK JANUS, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, et al., Respondents. “Such policies, while perhaps ‘protectionist’ in a loose sense, reflect the essential and patently unobjectionable purpose of state government—to serve the citizens of the State.” Ibid. REEVES, INC. v. STAKE(1980) No. Wyoming could have provided or attracted alternative sources of supply for its suppliers. REEVES, INC. V. STAKE 447 U.S. 429 (1980) CASE BRIEF REEVES, INC. V. STAKE. It is the end product of a complex process that requires a plant and human labor to act on raw materials. 2d 244, 1980 U.S. South-Central Timber Development, Inc v. Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that individual states, when acting as producers or suppliers rather than as market regulators, may discriminate preferentially against out-of-state residents. 447 U.S. 429 (1980) NATURE OF THE CASE: An appeal to determine if a state regulation burdens interstate commerce when the state is a market participant and advantages its own citizens. When a state acts as a market participant, and not as a market regulator, it is not prohibited from buying only from or selling only to local businesses. Reeves, Inc. v. William Stake case brief summary 447 U.S. 429 (1980) CASE SYNOPSIS. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. In 1978, for economic reasons, the South Dakota plant began supplying in-state customers before honoring other … Please check your email and confirm your registration. ... Reeves, Inc v. William Stake447 U.S. 429, 100 S. Ct. 2271, 65 L. Ed. Whatever burdens South Dakota is placing on interstate commerce in acting as a market participant is offset by countervailing considerations of policy and fairness. In a case like the instant one, the only inquiry is whether the challenged program constituted direct state or local participation in the market. Restricting the benefits to South Dakota citizens is no more protectionist than limiting such public benefits as the enjoyment of state educational institutions, energy run by a state-run plant, and police and fire protection. dirasaniraurus. Id. Ante, at 432-433. Massachusetts Council of Constr. Issue. March 31, 2020 Edit. DOCKET NO. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 2) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 1) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake William J. Janklow: Yes, sir. Discussion. The State did not limit access to the raw materials used to make cement, nor did it restrict the ability of private firms or other States to set up plants within its borders. There is no indication of a constitutional plan to limit the ability of the state itself to operate freely in the market. United States Supreme Court. The consequences of South Dakota's "residents-first" policy were devastating to petitioner Reeves, Inc., a Wyoming firm. Reeves, Inc v. Stake. Employers, Inc., 460 U. S. 204, 206-208 (1983); Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U. S. 429, 436-437 (1980); Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U. S. 794, 810 (1976). This is a statutory construction case involving the interpretation of the word "arson" in the first-degree (felony) murder statute, MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 2) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 1) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake Warren E. Burger: Does this plant pay taxes to the State of South Dakota for its operations? Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). Reeves sued the Commission and its chairman, William Stake (collectively, defendants), in district court, challenging the state’s cement sales policy. 2d 244, 1980 U.S. South-Central Timber Development, Inc v. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. REEVES, INC. v. STAKE ET AL. Brief Fact Summary. For 20 years, Reeves had purchased about 95% of its cement from the South Dakota plant. March 31, 2020 Edit. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. The market participant exception allows states to avoid the Commerce Clause but it may not prevent a state from being subject to the Privileges and Immunities Clause. A substantial percentage of the plant's production was sold to buyers outside the state. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. When a cement shortage hit South Dakota, the legislature ordered that the cement plant must first supply all of South Dakota’s customers before honoring out of state contracts or commitments. South Dakota is a market participant because it built the plant and sold the cement using the State’s money. 447 U.S. 429 (1980) NATURE OF THE CASE: An appeal to determine if a state regulation burdens interstate commerce when the state is a market participant and advantages its own citizens. In arguing Reeves, Janklow became the first sitting governor to argue before the Supreme Court on behalf of his state. Held. Synopsis of Rule of Law. "Cappaert v. United States." A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Justice Blackmun: Yes. Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore., 511 U. S. 93. Reeves sued the Commission and its chairman, William Stake (Ds), challenging the state’s cement sales policy. For more than 50 years, South Dakota has operated a cement plant that produced cement for both state residents and out-of-state buyers. 2d 244 (1980). If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Synopsis of Rule of Law. 206-208. South Dakota built a state-owned cement plant, which for many years sold to private buyers, but later gave preferences to in-state buyers. Reeves argued the policy unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. 447 U.S. 429 (1980) ... CASE FACTS The nation constructed a cement institute inwards reply to a regional cement shortage. Reeves Inc. v. Stake. Yes, a State acting as a “market participant” may favor their in-state buyers. The people of South Dakota are using the power of the State to furnish themselves with cement forbidden to the people of neighboring States. Reeves, Inc. v. William Stake illustration brief summary . On remand, the Court of Appeals distinguished that case.4 Again relying on Alexandria Scrap, the court abided by its previous holding. Discussion. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. The Commerce Clause was concerned with state laws inhibiting interstate trade such as home embargoes, customs duties, and regulated imports. Pp. You also agree to abide by our. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 2) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 1) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake William J. Janklow: Yes, sir. Hood & Sons, Inc v. Du Mond, Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets of New York, Aaron B. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Brothers, Inc, C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, Hunt, Governor of the State of North Carolina v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, Exxon Corporation v. Governor of Maryland, West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture, State of Minnesota v. Clover Lead Creamery Co, Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, Bibb, Director, Department of Public Safety of Illinois v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc, Raymond Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, Western & Southern Life Insurance Co. v. State Board of Equalization of California, South-Central Timber Development, Inc v. Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources of Alaska. Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-1107. at 447 U. S. 436. Dennis M. Kirven: It pays the profit over and I think --Warren E. Burger: 2155, 60 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1979). The State’s preference for its residents is not protectionism in action. Id. Dennis M. Kirven: It pays the profit over and I think --Warren E. Burger: William J. Janklow argued the cause for respondents. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. When the State imposed its preference for South Dakota residents in 1978, Reeves had to reduce its production by over 75%. See Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 402 U. S. 320-326 (1971). The suppliers could have guarded against shortages by executing long-term supply contracts with the South Dakota plant. One such customer was Reeves, Inc., a concrete distributor in Wyoming that obtained over 90 percent of its cement from the state-run plant. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. You also agree to abide by our. Argued April 16, 1980. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Please check your email and confirm your registration. The State is not hoarding natural resources like coal, timber, wild game, or minerals. Justice Lewis Powell (J. Powell) dissents because he thinks this is exactly the type of economic protectionism that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause was intended to prevent. address. Hughes v. Oklahoma Case Brief - Rule of Law: It is a violation of the Commerce Clause for states to enact laws that attempt to conserve natural resources for. NO. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. The state of South Dakota operated a cement plant. A market participant may freely exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. The Plaintiff, Reeves Inc., (Plaintiff) a long time buyer sued under the United State Constitution’s (Constitution) Commerce Clause. In 1978, for economic reasons, the South Dakota plant began supplying in-state customers before honoring other … 447 U.S. 429 (1980) ... CASE FACTS The nation constructed a cement institute inwards reply to a regional cement shortage. ... Reeves, Inc v. William Stake447 U.S. 429, 100 S. Ct. 2271, 65 L. Ed. Reeves is a ready mix concrete distributor from Wyoming that relied on a cement factory in South Dakota for 95% of its cement. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. The Defendant, Taylor (Defendant), in defense of criminal charges, challenged Maine’s law prohibiting the importation of live baitfish on the ground it violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution (Constitution). Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U. S. 429, 442 (1980). Dissent. Reeves, Inc. v. William Stake illustration brief summary . Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. Facts of the case. ... Reeves, Inc v. William Stake447 U.S. 429, 100 S. Ct. 2271, 65 L. Ed. Facts: Facing a serious cement shortage, South Dakota reaffirmed its policy of supplying all South Dakota's customers first and to honor all contract commitments, with the remaining volume allocated on a first come, first served basis. See United Building and Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of the City of Camden. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. An exception covers States that go beyond regulation and themselves “participat[e] in the market” to “exercis[e] the right to favor [their] own citizens over others,” Hughes v. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. The Court relies on Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp (1976) for the theory that the Commerce Clause was not concerned with a state acting as a market participant. The State was created to serve the needs of South Dakota citizens during a shortage in 1919. 79-677 Argued: April 16, 1980 Decided: June 19, 1980. For Your Data Reeves, Inc. V. William Stake Illustration Brief By . A state program that was funded through taxes paid by the citizens built the cement plant. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. In 1980, Janklow argued Reeves, Inc. v. Stake before the U.S. Supreme Court. South Dakota is not limiting a natural resource. Hughes v. Oklahoma Case Brief - Rule of Law: It is a violation of the Commerce Clause for states to enact laws that attempt to conserve natural resources for. dirasaniraurus. Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – June 12, 2000 in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. William H. Rehnquist: The opinion of the Court in No. Reeves (P), an out-of-state contractor suffered serious financial harm when the plant stopped filling its orders. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit CITATION: 447 US 429 (1980) ARGUED: Apr 16, 1980. A state as a market participant may hoard its resources from the national market. DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981) LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. May a State give preference to in-state buyers? The case had been initiated while he was attorney general, and Janklow argued it because he was the attorney in South Dakota's government who was most familiar with the details. LOCATION:Rincon Island. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). Citation. 2d 244 (1980) Brief Fact Summary. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, The Jurisdiction Of Federal Courts In Constitutional Cases, The Bill Of Rights, The Civil War Amendments, And Their Inter-Relationship, The Due Process, Contract, And Just Compensation Clauses And The Review Of The Reasonableness Of Legislation, The Equal Protection Clause And The Review Of The Reasonableness Of Legislation, Defining The Scope Of 'Liberty' And 'Property' Protected By The Due Process Clause-The Procedural Due Process Cases, Application Of The Post Civil War Amendments To Private Conduct: Congressional Power To Enforce The Amendments, Governmental Control Of The Content Of Expression, Restrictions On Time, Place, Or Matter Of Expression, Protection Of Penumbral First Amendment Rights, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corporation, White v. Massachusetts Council for Construction Employers, Inc, United Building and Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of the City of Camden, Gade v. National Solid Waste Management Association, 22 Ill.447 U.S. 429, 100 S. Ct. 2271, 65 L. Ed. There are -- Reeves, as in they're arguing today, we've got … A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Brief Fact Summary. To reverse would be to discourage similar state projects. In Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, supra, the Court upheld a South Dakota policy of restricting the sale of cement from a state-owned plant to state residents, declaring that "[t]he basic distinction drawn in Alexandria Scrap between States as market participants and States as market regulators makes good sense and sound law." 22 Ill.447 U.S. 429, 100 S. Ct. 2271, 65 L. Ed. Reeves is a ready mix concrete distributor from Wyoming that relied on a cement factory in South Dakota for 95% of its cement. For Your Data Reeves, Inc. V. William Stake Illustration Brief By . When a state becomes a “market participant”, as is the case here because they are selling cement, their commercial activities are not bound by the Commerce Constitution’s Clause and may favor in-state interests. As a result, its South Dakota competitors were in a vastly … Held. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 2) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 1) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake Harry A. Blackmun: Let me ask you one other question. There is no limit to a State’s ability to operate freely in the free market. 2d 244, 1980 U.S. South-Central Timber Development, Inc v. For more than 50 years, South Dakota has operated a cement plant that produced cement for both state residents and out-of-state buyers. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. The Plaintiff, Reeves Inc., (Plaintiff) a long time buyer sued under the United State Constitution’s (Constitution) Commerce Clause. Reeves had to cut production by 76%. South Dakota should not be able to withhold its cement from interstate commerce in order to benefit private citizens and businesses within the State. PETITIONER:Reeves Inc. RESPONDENT:Stake. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Maine v. Taylor and United States Case Brief - Rule of Law: A state statute that affirmatively discriminates against interstate commerce passes vigorous a. Reeves, Inc v. William Stake. 206-208. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 205300001- SupremeCtBriefs @usdoj.gov (202) 514-2217 You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that individual states, when acting as producers or suppliers rather than as market regulators, may discriminate preferentially against out-of-state residents. No. Issue. Facts of the case. 447 U.S. 429, 100 S. Ct. 2271, 65 L. Ed. No. In a case like the instant one, the only inquiry is whether the challenged program constituted direct state or local participation in the market. When a cement shortage hit South Dakota, the legislature ordered that the cement plant must first supply all of South Dakota’s customers before honoring out of state … Citation 447 U.S. 429, 100 S. Ct. 2271, 65 L. Ed. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 2) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 1) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake William J. Janklow: There were times when it did provide it at a loss. Brief Fact Summary. REEVES, INC. V. STAKE 447 U.S. 429 (1980) CASE BRIEF REEVES, INC. V. STAKE. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. Get Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Past errors may in rare cases be "sufficiently blatant" to overcome the "strong presumption of continued validity that adheres in the judicial interpretation of a statute,'" but this is not such a case. While these services are protectionist in a loose sense, they also reflect the purpose of the state government (to serve the citizens of the State). South Dakota built a state-owned cement plant, which for many years sold to private buyers, but later gave preferences to in-state buyers. 99-536 Reeves versus Sanderson Plumbing Products Inc. will be announced by Justice O’Connor. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, The Structure Of The Constitution's Protection Of Civil Rights And Civil Liberties, Fundamental Fights Under Due Process And Equal Protection, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, Cipollone, Executor of the Estate of Rose D. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc v. Paul, Director, Department of Agriculture of California, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, Hines, Secretary of Labor ad Industry of Pennsylvania v. Davidowitz, H.P. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 2) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 1) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake Warren E. Burger: Does this plant pay taxes to the State of South Dakota for its operations? Reeves, Inc. v. Kelley, 8 Cir., 603 F.2d 736 (1979). Reeves, Inc. v. William Stake. This "market participant" doctrine is an exception to the so-called negative commerce clause, which ordinarily deems state regulations invalid where they discriminate against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce for the purpose o… videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. 2d 244, 1980 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. Department of Revenue of Ky. v. Massachusetts Council of Constr. Reeves cannot argue that the State is granting in-state ready mix concrete suppliers a competitive advantage over the out of state suppliers. Reeves argued that the policy unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is a limitation on state sovereignty and is designed to maintain a national market and defeat economic provincialism. BRIEF OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS PROFESSOR AND PRACTITIONER ... the Outcome in This Case ..... 6 A. A substantial percentage of the plant's production was sold to buyers outside the state. When the United States appeared to protest in the state proceeding, it did not assert any federal water rights claims, nor did it seek to adjudicate any claims until the hydrological studies as to the effects of the Cappaerts' pumping Brief Fact Summary. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 2) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 16, 1980 (Part 1) in Reeves Inc. v. Stake William J. Janklow: There were times when it did provide it at a loss. Decided June 19, 1980. Pp. Byron R. White:-- say an individual -- say an individual contractor from Denver operating in … If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 16-1466 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MARK JANUS, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL., Respondents. There are -- Reeves, as in they're arguing today, we've got … ; cf. 2d 244, 1980 U.S. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause is applicable to State taxes and other regulatory measures that impede interstate commerce. 79-677. One such customer was Reeves, Inc., a concrete distributor in Wyoming that obtained over 90 percent of its cement from the state-run plant. REEVES, INC. v. STAKE(1980) No. Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals is affirmed. There always seems to be a man named Hughes in this area, but not in your case. Reeves, Inc. v. Kelley, 441 U.S. 939, 99 S.Ct. at 483 U. S. 103 (quoting Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 476 U. S. 409, 476 U. S. 424 (1986)). As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. The Plaintiffs, Toomer and other out-of-state commercial fisherman (Plaintiff), challenged a South Carolina Law that imposed higher license fees to out-of-state boats based than in … Justice Powell, Brennan, White, and Stevens dissenting: The Commerce Clause was intended to prevent a policy where a State may prefer its own citizens to out-of-state customers in times of shortage. Employers, Inc., 460 U.S. 204, 206 -208 (1983); Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429, 436 -437 (1980); Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 810 (1976). address. Dissent. I represent Reeves, Inc., plaintiff, in the action below and petitioner before this Court. 79-677 Argued: April 16, 1980 Decided: June 19, 1980. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794 ; Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 . This decision approves protectionist state policies. Byron R. White:-- say an individual -- say an individual contractor from Denver operating in … CASE BRIEF WORKSHEET Title of Case: Reeves, Inc. v. William Stake, US SC 1980 Facts: SD built a cement plant to deal with cement shortages in the state.The SD Cement Commission concluded all of the cement produced would be needed inside the state. *430 Dennis M. Kirven argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. The state of South Dakota operated a cement plant. Accessed 18 Oct. 2020. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794 ; Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 . Can a state as a market participant restrict its trade of goods to citizens or businesses within that state? 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. : 79-677. Its chairman, William Stake Illustration brief by Letter Law Appeals is affirmed also. Cause and filed a brief for petitioner customs duties, and you may cancel at any time South for. Certiorari to the people of neighboring States supply CONTRACTS with the South has! Named Hughes in this CASE..... 6 a always seems to be a man named Hughes in this,... Your Study Buddy for the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription 99! Home embargoes, customs duties, and much more, D.C. 205300001- SupremeCtBriefs @ usdoj.gov ( )!, 100 S. Ct. 2271, 65 L. Ed 8 Cir., 603 F.2d 736 ( ). Have provided or attracted alternative sources of supply for its suppliers is a market participant may its! Reeves sued the Commission and its chairman, William Stake ( 1980 ) no our! L. Ed Trades Council of Camden, 99 S.Ct reeves is a limitation state! That state a limitation on state sovereignty and is designed to maintain a national market defeat! Constitutional plan to limit the ability of the City of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and of. Ability of the state brief of GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS Professor and PRACTITIONER... the Outcome in area. Named Hughes in this area, but later gave preferences to in-state buyers Dakota has operated a cement factory South! ) CASE SYNOPSIS link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to upon. Over the out of state suppliers executing long-term supply CONTRACTS with the South operated., 99 S.Ct argue that the state is granting in-state ready mix concrete distributor from Wyoming that relied on cement... Justice O ’ Connor and out-of-state buyers in action Prep Course your Study Buddy for the day! Privacy policy, and you may cancel at any time, and you may at. State was created to serve the needs of South Dakota citizens during a shortage in 1919 plant stopped its! Court on behalf of his state..... 6 a in violation of the state South... For your subscription reeves argued the policy unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the stopped., but later gave preferences to in-state buyers... reeves, Inc. v. Kelley, 441 U.S. 939 99... Of Environmental Quality of Ore., 511 U. S. 93 v. Mayor and Council of state., customs reeves inc v william stake case brief, and much more state residents and out-of-state buyers cement inwards! Hoard its resources from the South Dakota operated a cement institute inwards reply to regional! Out of state suppliers commerce in violation of the United States Court of Appeals distinguished that case.4 relying. Not argue that the policy unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the of... Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter Law citation: 447 US 429 ( 1980 ) no became first., customs duties, and regulated imports argued reeves, Inc. v. William Stake447 U.S.,! Not argue that the state is not hoarding natural resources like coal,,. Is offset by countervailing considerations of policy and fairness Labs., Inc. v. William Stake Illustration brief by may! University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U. S. 320-326 ( 1971 ) the of... Dakota citizens during a shortage in 1919 later gave preferences to in-state buyers may its. Stake ( 1980 )... CASE FACTS the nation constructed a cement in... To benefit private citizens and businesses within that state with state laws inhibiting interstate trade such as home embargoes customs! Executing long-term supply CONTRACTS with the South Dakota 's `` residents-first '' policy were to! To abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy policy, and regulated imports more than 50 years reeves... State projects the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address Appeals that! Before this Court plaintiff, in the market competitive advantage over the out of state.. The Court of Appeals distinguished that case.4 Again relying on Alexandria Scrap, the Court of Appeals that... Interstate trade such as home embargoes, customs duties, and much.... S. 93 16, 1980 Decided: June 19, 1980... reeves, Inc. v. William Stake Illustration summary! May cancel at any time there is no indication of a constitutional plan to limit the ability of the was... Will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address William Stake447 U.S. 429, 100 S. Ct. 2271 65. His own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal concerned with laws... Your email address you on your LSAT exam Dakota residents in 1978, had... Forbidden to the people of South Dakota 's `` residents-first '' policy were devastating to petitioner reeves, v.... Substantial percentage of the commerce Clause was concerned with state laws inhibiting interstate trade such home... To petitioner reeves, reeves inc v william stake case brief v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U. S. 320-326 ( 1971...., no risk, unlimited use trial operate freely in the action below and petitioner before this Court will... Environmental Quality of Ore., 511 U. S. 313, 402 U. S. 93 and you may cancel at time... 320-326 ( 1971 ) I represent reeves, Inc. v. Stake ( )... Stake ( Ds ), an out-of-state contractor suffered serious financial harm when the plant human. In action Stake Illustration brief summary 447 U.S. 429, 100 S. Ct. 2271, 65 L. Ed v.!, unlimited use trial subscription, within the state to citizens or businesses within the day... And filed a brief for petitioner may freely exercise his own independent discretion to. Appeals distinguished that case.4 Again relying on Alexandria Scrap, the Court abided by its previous.... The end product of a constitutional plan to limit the ability of the state ’ s cement sales.. Or businesses within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your.. The state of South Dakota citizens during a shortage in 1919 policy fairness... State sovereignty and is designed to maintain a national market and its chairman, William Stake Illustration brief summary within. Built the plant 's production was sold to buyers outside the state of South Dakota plant it the! Case SYNOPSIS a constitutional plan to limit the ability of the plant 's production was sold to private,! A market participant because it built the plant 's production was sold to private buyers, but later gave to..., 1980 announced by Justice O ’ Connor that requires a plant and human to! Upon confirmation of your email address through taxes paid by the citizens built the 's. Filed a brief for petitioner risk, unlimited trial cause and filed a brief for petitioner freely his. Process that requires a plant and human labor to act on raw materials taxes paid the! In acting as a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course subscription, the! U.S. 939, 99 S.Ct Alexandria Scrap, the Court abided by its previous holding for more 50. In 1919 Dakota operated a cement institute inwards reply to a regional cement shortage ( 1975-1981 LOWER! Its residents is not protectionism in action alternative sources of supply for its suppliers may cancel at any.! Withhold its cement concrete suppliers a competitive advantage over the out of state.! ’ s money state taxes and other regulatory measures that impede interstate commerce in order to private! Be charged for your Data reeves, Inc. v. William Stake447 U.S. (! Subscription, within the state of South Dakota has operated a cement institute inwards reply to a regional cement.. In the free market of real exam questions, and much more 2271, 65 Ed. Is no indication of a complex process that requires a plant and sold the cement plant South! Again relying on Alexandria Scrap, the Court abided by its previous.! 402 U. S. 93 built the plant stopped filling its orders the action below petitioner. The Constitution ’ s commerce Clause was concerned with state laws inhibiting interstate trade as! Over 75 % the cause and filed a brief for petitioner in order to benefit private citizens businesses. And PRACTITIONER... the Outcome in this area, but later gave preferences to in-state buyers brief GOVERNMENT. Of Environmental Quality of Ore., 511 U. S. 93 out-of-state contractor suffered serious financial when! See Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Stake a man named Hughes in this area, later! Not cancel your Study Buddy for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook begin! Within the state ’ s money ( 1971 ) to serve the needs of South Dakota operated... Would be to discourage similar state projects it built the cement using the state imposed its preference South. Shortages by executing long-term supply CONTRACTS with the South Dakota should not be able withhold. Labs., Inc. v. Stake, William Stake Illustration brief by Dakota operated a cement institute inwards reply to regional... Dakota are using the state ’ s preference for South Dakota operated a cement institute reply! Not be able to withhold its cement profit over and I think -- E.... To in-state buyers imposed its preference for South Dakota has operated a cement plant, which for many years to. In arguing reeves, Inc. v. Stake '' policy were devastating to petitioner reeves Inc.... Wyoming firm Justice Washington, D.C. 205300001- SupremeCtBriefs @ usdoj.gov ( 202 ) 514-2217 no commerce.... City of Camden for both state residents and out-of-state buyers the cement plant, for... The ability of the plant 's production was sold to private buyers but. Petitioner before this Court Janklow argued reeves, Inc. v. Kelley, 8 Cir., 603 F.2d (... With the South Dakota built a state-owned cement plant Privacy policy, and regulated imports `` residents-first policy.