Legal Opinion
MITE CORPORATION and Mite Holdings, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Alan J. DIXON, Defendant-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided December 3, 1980No. 79-1267PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.
The possibility-and perhaps probability-that different levels of government will take quite dissimilar approaches to similar problems is inherent in federalism. But these divergences are not necessarily dysfunctional; the states in our federal system have long served as laboratories of social experiment-free, within limits, to evolve strategies of their own to meet pressing problems. State prerogatives, however, must remain necessarily circumscribed by the unifying requirements of the national authority as fixed in the Constitution. When Congress has spoken definitively…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Edgar v. Mite Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Kennecott Corp. v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- Amanda Acquisition Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Universal Foods Corporation, Defendants-Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- Dynamics Corporation of America, Counterdefendant-Appellee v. Cts Corporation, Counterplaintiff-Appellant. State of Indiana, Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.