With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". interstate market, not particular interstate firms, from prohibitive or burdensome regulations.”). In this case, the Referendum has prevented SDDS from operating Lonetree under the conditions and standards set forth when the legislature passed S.B. 169. However, nothing prevents SDDS from reapplying for another permit and proposing more stringent environmental safeguards. Furthermore, even if SDDS cannot operate Lonetree, the example of the Big Stone waste disposal plant demonstrates that the flow of interstate waste to South Dakota has not been prevented. The Court concludes that the incidental burden which the Referendum imposed on interstate commerce was not “clearly excessive” in comparison to the local benefits. See Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. at 473, 101 S.Ct. at 728-29 (<HOLDING>); Exxon, 437 U.S. at 128-29, 98 S.Ct. at 2215

A: holding that summary judgment was improperly granted in view of the need for careful interpretation of the original and reissue claims in light of the specification the prosecution history and the alleged industry practice
B: holding that in 1998 the law was clearly established that excessive duration of a police dog bite and improper encouragement of a continuation of the attack by officers could constitute excessive force
C: holding that the fines imposed by the challenged city ordinances are not excessive even if the excessive fines clause is applicable
D: holding that even if outofstate plastic producers were burdened relatively more heavily than the minnesota pulpwood industry the burden was not clearly excessive in view of the ecological benefits which would accrue
D.