Special Issue: Amendment E Litigation and Issues Related to the Regulation of “Corporate Farming” by the States: South Dakota Farm Bureau v. Hazeltine, 49 SOUTH DAKOTA L. REV. 599-886 (2004). (225 pp)

– Crissman, Foreword, 599-606 . – Canney & Davidson, Intervenor – Appellants’ Opening Brief, 607-622 . – Barnett, Best & Giedd, Appellants’ Opening Brief, 622-645 . – Stenberg, Brief of the State of Nebraska as Amicus Curiae, 646-660 . – Broom, Brief of Amicus Curiae Holstein et al., 661-673 . – Fulton & Gerdes, Brief of Appellees Montana-Dakota Utilities et al., 674-684 . – Tonner, Brief of Appellees and Cross-Appellants Hilben, 685-700 . – Gregerson & Day, Brief of Appellees and Cross-Appellants South Dakota Farm Bureau et al., 701-718 . – Barnett, Best & Giedd, Reply Brief of Appellants, 719-742 . – Rademacher et al, Brief of Amicus Curiae American Farm Bureau Federation, 743-758 . – Gregerson & Day, Reply Brief of Appelleee and Cross-Appellants South Dakota Farm Bureau et al., 759-768 . – Stokes & Moeller, Brief of Amicus Curiae National Farmers Union et al, 769-776 . – Canney, Amendment E: A Personal Perspective on Defending its Constitutionality, 777-780 . – Fulton, Amendment E: The Constitutional Dimensions of Unintended Consequences, 781-786 . – Redlin & Redlin, Amendment E, Rural Communities and the Family Farm, 787-794 . – Stokes & Brekken, The Eighth Circuit Grants Corporate Interests a New Weapon Against State Regulation in South Dakota Farm Bureau v. Hazeltine, 795-803 . – Note, The Past, Present and Future of Anti-Corporate Farming Laws in South Dakota: Purposeful Discrimination or Permissive Protectionism?, 804-823 . – Student Article, The Economic Liberty Rationale in the Dormant Commerce Clause, 824-843 . – Student Article, Discrimination in the Dormant Commerce Clause, 844-866 .

49-SD-Law-Review.pdf View | Download