Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission (1978) - Revision history

Admin: Admin moved page Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission to Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission (1978)

2019-10-18T05:55:08Z

Admin moved page Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission to Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission (1978)

Admin at 05:07, 17 July 2018

2018-07-17T05:07:32Z

Admin at 18:55, 13 July 2018

2018-07-13T18:55:13Z

Admin at 18:57, 2 July 2018

2018-07-02T18:57:52Z

Morgannoel18 at 07:41, 22 October 2017

2017-10-22T07:41:58Z

Admin at 15:26, 28 September 2017

2017-09-28T15:26:09Z

Admin at 15:19, 28 September 2017

2017-09-28T15:19:16Z

Nicole: Created page with "In ''Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission'' (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Montana’s substantially higher elk-hunting license fee for nonresidents over objecti..."

2017-01-23T17:06:36Z

Created page with "In ''Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission'' (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Montana’s substantially higher elk-hunting license fee for nonresidents over objecti..."

New page

In ''Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission'' (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Montana’s substantially higher elk-hunting license fee for nonresidents over objections that it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, which requires that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” According to the Court, this clause requires a state to treat residents and nonresidents equally only with regard to those privileges and immunities “bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity.” Elk hunting, according to the Court, does not fit into that category. The decision is also interesting because it rejects the doctrine articulated in ''Toomer v. Witsell'' (1948) that the discrimination against nonresidents must bear some relationship to the problem that the state is attempting to address.

==== Ellis Katz ====

SEE ALSO: [[Corfield v. Coryell]]; [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV]]; [[Toomer v. Witsell]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:07, 17 July 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	In ''Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission'' (1978), the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld Montana’s substantially higher elk-hunting license fee for nonresidents over objections that it violated the [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV\|Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV]], which requires that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” According to the Court, this clause requires a state to treat residents and nonresidents equally only with regard to those privileges and immunities “bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity.” Elk hunting, according to the Court, does not fit into that category. The decision is also interesting because it rejects the doctrine articulated in ''[[Toomer v. Witsell]]'' (1948) that the discrimination against nonresidents must bear some relationship to the problem that the state is attempting to address.	+	In ''Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission'' (1978), the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld Montana’s substantially higher elk-hunting license fee for nonresidents over objections that it violated the [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV\|Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV]], which requires that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” According to the Court, this clause requires a state to treat residents and nonresidents equally only with regard to those privileges and immunities “bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity.” Elk hunting, according to the Court, does not fit into that category. The decision is also interesting because it rejects the doctrine articulated in ''[[Toomer v. Witsell]]'' (1948) that the discrimination against nonresidents must bear some relationship to the problem that the state is attempting to address.
		+
		+	{\| class="wikitable"
		+	\|-
		+	\| '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
		+	Gary J. Simson, “Discrimination against Nonresidents and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV,” ''University of Pennsylvania Law Review'' 128, no. 2 (1979): 379–401
		+	\|}

	==== Ellis Katz ====		==== Ellis Katz ====

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 13 July 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	In ''Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission'' (1978), the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld Montana’s substantially higher elk-hunting license fee for nonresidents over objections that it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, which requires that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” According to the Court, this clause requires a state to treat residents and nonresidents equally only with regard to those privileges and immunities “bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity.” Elk hunting, according to the Court, does not fit into that category. The decision is also interesting because it rejects the doctrine articulated in ''Toomer v. Witsell'' (1948) that the discrimination against nonresidents must bear some relationship to the problem that the state is attempting to address.	+	In ''Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission'' (1978), the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld Montana’s substantially higher elk-hunting license fee for nonresidents over objections that it violated the [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV\|Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV]], which requires that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” According to the Court, this clause requires a state to treat residents and nonresidents equally only with regard to those privileges and immunities “bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity.” Elk hunting, according to the Court, does not fit into that category. The decision is also interesting because it rejects the doctrine articulated in ''[[Toomer v. Witsell]]'' (1948) that the discrimination against nonresidents must bear some relationship to the problem that the state is attempting to address.

	==== Ellis Katz ====		==== Ellis Katz ====

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 2 July 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	In ''Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission'' (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Montana’s substantially higher elk-hunting license fee for nonresidents over objections that it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, which requires that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” According to the Court, this clause requires a state to treat residents and nonresidents equally only with regard to those privileges and immunities “bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity.” Elk hunting, according to the Court, does not fit into that category. The decision is also interesting because it rejects the doctrine articulated in ''Toomer v. Witsell'' (1948) that the discrimination against nonresidents must bear some relationship to the problem that the state is attempting to address.	+	In ''Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission'' (1978), the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld Montana’s substantially higher elk-hunting license fee for nonresidents over objections that it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, which requires that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” According to the Court, this clause requires a state to treat residents and nonresidents equally only with regard to those privileges and immunities “bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity.” Elk hunting, according to the Court, does not fit into that category. The decision is also interesting because it rejects the doctrine articulated in ''Toomer v. Witsell'' (1948) that the discrimination against nonresidents must bear some relationship to the problem that the state is attempting to address.

	==== Ellis Katz ====		==== Ellis Katz ====

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:26, 28 September 2017
Line 5:		Line 5:
	SEE ALSO: [[Corfield v. Coryell]]; [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV]]; [[Toomer v. Witsell]]		SEE ALSO: [[Corfield v. Coryell]]; [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV]]; [[Toomer v. Witsell]]

−	[[Category:~~Political/Historical Figures~~]]	+	[[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:19, 28 September 2017
Line 4:		Line 4:

	SEE ALSO: [[Corfield v. Coryell]]; [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV]]; [[Toomer v. Witsell]]		SEE ALSO: [[Corfield v. Coryell]]; [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV]]; [[Toomer v. Witsell]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Political/Historical Figures]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 05:55, 18 October 2019
(No difference)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==== Ellis Katz ====
 SEE ALSO: [[Corfield v. Coryell]]; [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV]]; [[Toomer v. Witsell]]
 [[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]