Legal Opinion
Condon v. Andino, Inc.
District Court, D. Maine
Decided March 25, 1997No. Civil 96-0246-BPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
BRODY, District Judge.
Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, David Condon, requests that the Court enjoin Defendants, Andino, Inc. (hereinafter “Andino”), the Town of Houlton (hereinafter “Houlton” or’ “the Town”), Andrew Marino, and Allan Bean from enforcing the Town’s Solid Waste Management Ordinance (hereinafter the “Ordinance”) and the solid waste contract between the Town and Andino. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Houlton’s Ordinance is substantively similar to the flow control ordinance held…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- United States v. LopezSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Jones v. Rath Packing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Wickard v. FilburnSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Houlton Citizens' Coalition v. Town of HoultonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
- Waste Mgmt. of Alameda Cty., Inc. v. Biagini Waste Reduction Sys., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Coastal Counties Workforce, Inc. v. LepageDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2018
- Houlton Citizens' Coalition v. Town of HoultonDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1997
- WASTE MGMT. OF ALAMEDA CTY. v. Biagini Waste Reduction Systems, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.