Dormant Commerce Clause

163 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Alleghany Corp. v. Pomeroy
  898 F.2d 1314· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-27 ·cited 4×
  The North Dakota statute regulating acquisitions of control of domestic insurance companies is protected from Commerce Clause attack by the McCarran-Ferguson Act and is not pre-empted by the Williams Act.
• In re The Beer Inst. (formerly named United States Brewers Ass'n v. Healy
  849 F.2d 753· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 4×
  The amended Connecticut beer price affirmation provisions unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce by directly regulating prices in bordering states.
• Nat'l Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. City OF NEW York
  677 F.2d 270· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 4×
  New York City's hazardous gas routing and curfew regulations are constitutional and not preempted by federal law, but the city's hazard class definitions may be preempted.
• Island Silver & Spice, Inc. v. Islamorada
  475 F. Supp. 2d 1281· S.D. Fla.· 2007-02-28 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Village's Formula Retail Ordinance violates the Dormant Commerce Clause because its practical effect discriminates against interstate commerce by favoring local businesses and lacks a legitimate local purpose.
• Lake Cnty. v. NRG/Recovery Grp., Inc.
  144 F. Supp. 2d 1316· M.D. Fla.· 2001-05-16 ·cited 3×
  A district court has discretion to remand a case to state court after removal if all federal claims have been dropped from the complaint, even if removal was initially proper.
• Am. Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Reg., Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty.
  32 F. Supp. 2d 1308· M.D. Fla.· 1998-11-12 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Pinellas County Ordinance regulating charitable solicitations is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, as it serves legitimate local interests with only incidental burdens on interstate commerce and functions as a valid user fee.
• BIG Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the Anchorage Sch. Dist.
  952 F.2d 1173· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Big Country lacked standing to challenge the state's alleged failure to follow federal regulations or the federal agency's failure to enforce them, and that Alaska's milk preference statute was a valid exercise of market participation under the dormant commerc
• Rosenfeld v. Lu
  766 F. Supp. 1131· S.D. Fla.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 3×
  Florida Statute § 686.201 is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause because it discriminates on its face and in its practical effect against interstate commerce.
• Trojan Techs., Inc. v. Commonwealth OF Pa. & Leroy S. Zimmerman
  916 F.2d 903· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 3×
  The Pennsylvania Steel Products Procurement Act is not preempted by federal law and does not violate the Commerce Clause or the Foreign Affairs Power.
• Tate v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.
  813 F. Supp. 2d 1282· S.D. Fla.· 2013-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the System Board of Adjustment did not act in excess of its jurisdiction or deny due process, and therefore granted summary judgment for the airline.
• Nat'l Bus. Aviation Ass'n v. City of Naples Airport Auth.
  162 F. Supp. 2d 1343· M.D. Fla.· 2001-08-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Naples Aviation Authority's ban on Stage 2 aircraft was not pre-empted by federal law, nor did it violate the Commerce Clause, as the ban was a permissible exercise of the airport proprietor's power and was not demonstrably unreasonable or discriminatory.
• TA Operating Corp. v. State
  767 So. 2d 1270· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-09-28 ·cited 2×
  TA Operating Corporation sought a refund of Florida excise taxes paid on diesel fuel purchased for export to Georgia, claiming the tax violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the refund, holding that Florida's excise tax o
• Fla. State Conf. of NAACP Branches v. City of Daytona Beach
  54 F. Supp. 2d 1283· M.D. Fla.· 1999-04-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Traffic Management Plan's provisions for bridge closures and pass issuance violated the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, and the Dormant Commerce Clause.
• Fla. Dep't OF Revenue & J. Thomas Herndon v. Share Int'l, Inc.
  667 So. 2d 226· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Department of Revenue appealed a trial court decision declaring its sales/use tax assessment against Share International unconstitutional. Share, a Texas mail-order chiropractic supplies company, had minimal presence in Florida—employees and products present for appro
• Waste Sys. Corp. v. Cnty. OF Martin
  985 F.2d 1381· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-18 ·cited 2×
  Local ordinances mandating that all compostable solid waste be delivered to a specific in-county facility violate the Commerce Clause because they discriminate against interstate commerce and serve as economic protectionist measures.
• Medigen OF Kentucky v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n OF W. Va.
  985 F.2d 164· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that West Virginia's certification requirement for medical waste transporters, which restricts market entry based on existing service adequacy, unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce under the dormant Commerce Clause. The court also affirmed the district co
• K-S Pharmacies, Inc. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp.
  962 F.2d 728· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 2×
  Wisconsin's price discrimination statute for prescription drugs is constitutional as it applies only to in-state sales and is not unconstitutionally vague.
• Valley Bank OF Nev. v. Plus Sys., Inc.
  914 F.2d 1186· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-11 ·cited 2×
  A Nevada statute allowing banks to charge transaction fees at ATMs does not violate the Commerce Clause because it does not discriminate against interstate commerce and its burden on commerce is not excessive in relation to legitimate state interests.
• United States v. Taylor
  752 F.2d 757· 1st Cir.· 1985-01-18 ·cited 2×
  A Maine statute prohibiting the importation of live bait fish violates the Commerce Clause because it discriminates against interstate commerce and less discriminatory alternatives are available to serve the state's purported local purpose.
• Flava Works, Inc. v. City of Miami
  595 F. Supp. 2d 1341· S.D. Fla.· 2009-01-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the City of Miami's zoning ordinance, which is designed to regulate establishments offering adult entertainment at a physical location, cannot be applied to a residence where the public offering of such entertainment occurs solely in cyberspace.
• Fla. Transp. Serv., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  543 F. Supp. 2d 1315· S.D. Fla.· 2008-04-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the County's stevedore permit ordinance, as applied, violates the dormant Commerce Clause for permit denials in 2003, 2004, and 2005, entitling Florida Transportation to summary judgment on liability for those claims.
• E. Coast Recycling, Inc. v. City of Port St. Lucie
  234 F. Supp. 2d 1259· S.D. Fla.· 2002-11-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the city and county ordinances and interlocal agreement do not violate the dormant commerce clause or substantive due process rights, and thus granted summary judgment for the defendants.
• Bainbridge v. Bush
  148 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2001-07-17 ·cited 1×
  Florida's direct shipment law, while discriminatory under the dormant Commerce Clause, is a constitutional exercise of state power under the Twenty-First Amendment because it serves core state interests like revenue collection and orderly market conditions.
• Bennett Elec. Co. v. Vill. of Miami Shores
  11 F. Supp. 2d 1348· S.D. Fla.· 1998-05-06 ·cited 1×
  A municipality's decision to take over waste collection services, eliminating private competition, does not violate the Commerce Clause or federal antitrust laws due to state action immunity.
• J.F. Shea Co. v. City OF Chicago
  992 F.2d 745· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-06 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the City acted as a market participant, making the Commerce Clause inapplicable, and that an employee lacked standing to assert a Privileges and Immunities Clause claim based on the employer's potential injury.
• Wallace v. Town of Palm Beach
  624 F. Supp. 864· S.D. Fla.· 1985-12-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Palm Beach registration ordinance, while serving legitimate local interests in crime control, imposes an excessive burden on interstate commerce due to the availability of less restrictive alternatives, thus violating the Commerce Clause.
• Hernandez v. Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs
  11th Cir.· 2026-10-09
  The Florida Board of Bar Examiners is an arm of the state of Florida entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. The experienced-applicant rule does not facially discriminate against interstate commerce because it makes no distinction based on geographic origin—all experie
• Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Doctor Bradley
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2026-03-06
  The NCAA appeals a trial court's issuance of a temporary injunction requiring it to grant Doctor Bradley eligibility to compete in college basketball for the 2025-2026 season, waiving the NCAA's Five-Year Rule. The appellate court quashes the injunction, finding the trial court's
• C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg.
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2023-08-23
• Weitz v. Genting N.Y. LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-02
  A plaintiff's claim under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act based solely on receiving a single unsolicited text message, without alleging concrete harm beyond statutory damages, does not establish Article III standing, thus depriving the federal court of subject matter juris
• Davis v. Coast Dental Servs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-09-13
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim under the FTSA and that the TCPA claim constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading.
• Director of Revenue
  Del.· 2021-11-29
  The Delaware Supreme Court held that the Division of Revenue's policy limiting net operating loss deductions to the consolidated amount of a federal filing group violated Delaware's corporate income tax statutes, specifically 30 Del. C. 1901-1903. The court affirmed the Superior
• Netchoice LLC v. Moody
  N.D. Fla.· 2021-06-30
  The court held that certain provisions of Florida's social media law are likely preempted by federal law (47 U.S.C. § 230) or violate the First Amendment, warranting a preliminary injunction against their enforcement.
• Bialek v. Delvista Towers Condo. Ass'n
  852 F. Supp. 2d 1002· S.D. Fla.· 2014-01-10
• Collins v. Erin Cap. Mgmt., LLC
  850 F. Supp. 2d 673· S.D. Fla.· 2013-10-28
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar FDCPA claims alleging violations in debt collection methods, but it does bar claims seeking damages that would effectively overturn state court judgments. Collateral estoppel does not apply as the FDCPA violation issue
• Flava Works, Inc. v. City of Miami
  800 F. Supp. 2d 1182· S.D. Fla.· 2011-07-29
  The court held that the City of Miami's zoning ordinance prohibiting business operations in residential zones was not unconstitutional, overbroad, or a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause, and granted summary judgment for the defendants.
• Allied Veterans of the World, Inc. v. Seminole Cnty.
  783 F. Supp. 2d 1197· M.D. Fla.· 2011-05-06
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional challenges to the ordinance banning simulated gambling devices, and thus their motions for preliminary injunction must be denied.
• Deluccio v. Havill
  43 So. 3d 925· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-09-13
• S. Waste Sys., LLC v. City of Coral Springs
  687 F. Supp. 2d 1342· S.D. Fla.· 2010-01-22
  The court held that the exclusive franchise agreement and city ordinance did not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause because the bidding process was fair and open, and the agreement did not discriminate against interstate commerce.
• Flava Works, Inc. v. City of Miami
  559 F. Supp. 2d 1318· S.D. Fla.· 2008-06-02
  The court held that most of the plaintiff's claims challenging the City's adult entertainment ordinance survived the motion to dismiss, but the takings claim was dismissed without prejudice.
• Lehman Bros. Bank, FSB
  Del.· 2007-11-07
  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Superior Court's decision. The Court held that Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB was domiciled in Delaware for franchise tax purposes, making Section 1101(a) of the Delaware bank franchise tax statute applicable. Conseq
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Lehman Bros. Bank, FSB v. C.A. No. 05A-06-004-FSS State Bank Comm'r
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2006-11-30
  The Delaware State Bank Commissioner's decision upholding the bank franchise tax assessment and penalties against a federally chartered bank is affirmed. The court found that the bank was headquartered in Delaware for tax purposes, that the income taxed was earned within Delaware
• Avalon Carriage Serv. Inc. v. City of St. Augustine
  417 F. Supp. 2d 1279· M.D. Fla.· 2006-02-23
  The court held that the City Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the equal protection and commerce clause claims, and on the antitrust claims due to the state action doctrine. Individual defendants Harriss and Litzinger are also entitled to summary judgment on qualifie
• Petchem, Inc. v. Canaveral Port Auth.
  368 F. Supp. 2d 1292· M.D. Fla.· 2005-05-13
  The court held that the settlement agreement did not clearly preclude the dormant Commerce Clause claim, but that the Port Authority, as a governmental entity, is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Bfi Waste Sys. of N. Am., Inc. v. Broward Cnty.
  265 F. Supp. 2d 1332· S.D. Fla.· 2003-06-06
  The court held that the County's actions in contracting for solid waste disposal and requiring haulers to use designated facilities fall under the market participant doctrine, thus exempting them from Commerce Clause scrutiny.
• Shamp v. Bd. of Orthotists & Prosthetists
  781 So. 2d 1124· Fla. 1st DCA· 2001-02-14
  The court affirmed the Board of Orthotists and Prosthetists' denial of Shamp's licensure application under section 468.805, holding that constitutional challenges to the statute's in-state experience requirement should be brought in a declaratory action in circuit court rather th
• BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach
  127 F. Supp. 2d 1348· S.D. Fla.· 1999-09-28
  The court held that while a town can regulate the use of its public rights-of-way, federal and state law preempts most other aspects of its telecommunications ordinance, particularly regarding fees and qualifications.
• Am. S. Ins. Co. v. State
  674 So. 2d 810· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-05-13
  American Southern Insurance Company, a Georgia-domiciled insurer, appeals a retaliatory tax assessment by Florida's Department of Revenue, challenging the Department's definition of "similar insurer" under Florida's retaliatory tax statute. The court affirms the Department's cons
• BFI Med. Waste Sys. v. Whatcom Cnty.
  983 F.2d 911· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-15
  A county ordinance banning out-of-county medical waste disposal violates the Commerce Clause and is therefore unconstitutional. Attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 may be available, requiring remand for the district court to exercise its discretion.
• Triple G Landfills, Inc. v. Bd. OF Comm'rs OF Fountain Cnty.
  977 F.2d 287· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-05
  The court held that the county ordinance is a zoning ordinance and is therefore invalid under Indiana law because the county has not adopted a comprehensive zoning plan.