State of Confusion

In: Business and Management

Submitted By joannthiede
Words 1109
Pages 5
State of Confusion
BUS 415 Business Law
November 1, 2010

State of Confusion
Tanya Trucker owns an out-of-state trucking company and resides in the State of Denial. For the purpose of conducting her business, she frequently finds the need to drive her truck across other states; including the State of Confusion. Recently, the State of Confusion ratified a state law demanding all towing trailers and trucks traveling through the State of Confusion to have the B-type truck hitch installed on the vehicle. Truck owners and drivers choosing not to install the B-type truck hitch are not allowed permission to use the highways of the State of Confusion. Instead of driving through the State of Confusion, truck operators must drive around on the perimeter of the state, which will cost the trucking companies extra time and money.
State and court system jurisdiction handling Tanya’s suit and explain
Because the State of Confusion acted in violation of the Commerce clause contained within the U. S. Constitution, the federal court becomes the filing jurisdiction for Tanya Trucker’s lawsuit. Although the 10th Amendment to the Constitution sanctions states the power to regulate intrastate commerce, the Commerce clause included within the Constitution of the United States. In particular Article One, Section Eight, Clause Three grants Congressional body authority of commerce regulation and trade actions conducted with the Indian tribes, other states, and foreign nations. The Commerce Clause justifies the use of federal laws in non-interstate affairs.
State of Confusion statute constitutionality. Discuss the legal reasoning.
The State of Confusion statute does not appear constitutional. The first issue is whether the State of Confusion is attempting to restrain trade from out-of-state businesses by trying to enforce the B-type truck hitch. Such an effort would give the…...

Similar Documents

State of Confusion

...State of Confusion BUS 415 Business Law November 1, 2010 State of Confusion Tanya Trucker owns an out-of-state trucking company and resides in the State of Denial. For the purpose of conducting her business, she frequently finds the need to drive her truck across other states; including the State of Confusion. Recently, the State of Confusion ratified a state law demanding all towing trailers and trucks traveling through the State of Confusion to have the B-type truck hitch installed on the vehicle. Truck owners and drivers choosing not to install the B-type truck hitch are not allowed permission to use the highways of the State of Confusion. Instead of driving through the State of Confusion, truck operators must drive around on the perimeter of the state, which will cost the trucking companies extra time and money. State and court system jurisdiction handling Tanya’s suit and explain Because the State of Confusion acted in violation of the Commerce clause contained within the U. S. Constitution, the federal court becomes the filing jurisdiction for Tanya Trucker’s lawsuit. Although the 10th Amendment to the Constitution sanctions states the power to regulate intrastate commerce, the Commerce clause included within the Constitution of the United States. In particular Article One, Section Eight, Clause Three grants Congressional body authority of commerce regulation and trade actions conducted with the Indian tribes, other states, and foreign nations. The Commerce...

Words: 1109 - Pages: 5

State of Confusion

...Situation The state of Confusion enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. This hitch is manufactured by only one manufacturer in Confusion. The result of this statute is that any trucker who wants to drive through Confusion must stop and have the new hitch installed, or drive around Confusion. The federal government has not made any attempt to regulate the truck hitches used on the nation’s highways. Tanya Trucker, who owns a trucking company in the state of Denial, is not happy about the additional expense this statute imposes on her business. She intends to file suit against Confusion to overturn the statute. State of Confusion There are two courts that could have jurisdiction over Tanya's suit. She could file the suit in the state court of Confusion. The State court could decide whether the state statute is unconstitutional. The second court that would have jurisdiction over the suit is the federal district. Confusion's statue effects the federal transportation. The trucker will either have to pay the extra money to install the hitch to drive through the state or they'll have to go around the state which will probably be out of their way. Confusion's statue is not constitutional because it imposes an impermissible burden on the transportation commerce. This issue does not only affect the state of Confusion but it also affects the states around Confusion. It would potentially affect the surrounding...

Words: 643 - Pages: 3

State of Confusion Paper

...State of Confusion Paper Tanya Tucker owns a trucking company in the state of Denial. She is extremely frustrated because of the statute that is in place in the state of Confusion. The state of confusion enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. This hitch is made by only one manufacturer located in the State of Confusion. Tanya’s truck drivers are facing issues when they drive through the state of Confusion because they do not have the required hitch. Tanya also does not want all of the additional expense in purchasing these hitches so her truckers can drive through the state of Confusion. The federal government has not made any attempt to regulate the truck hitches used on the nation’s highways so this is an interesting case as Tanya is prepared to file a civil lawsuit. What court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit and why? According to the United States Constitution, this particular case would fall into a federal court type of system. Another interesting fact with this is that the state of Confusion is the only state that is trying to force this type of statute. If there were interstate type statutes like this one, the case could potentially fall in to the Supreme Court’s lap at some point too. As for now, this case will most likely be heard by the United States district Court along with the United States Appellate Court when the appeals are taking place. Is the Confusion...

Words: 1248 - Pages: 5

State of Confusion

...The state of Confusion enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. The state has not explained why this hitch is required. This hitch is manufactured by only one manufacturer in Confusion. The result of this statute is that any trucker who wants to drive through Confusion must stop and have the new hitch installed, or drive around Confusion. The federal government has not made any attempt to regulate the truck hitches used on the nation’s highways. Tanya Trucker, who owns a trucking company in the state of Denial, is not happy about the additional expense this statute imposes on her business. She intends to file suit against Confusion to overturn the statute (syllabus). The court that will have jurisdiction over her suit needs to be decided in order for the court to decide if the Confusion statute is constitutional or not. Once Tanya’s suit is taken to court, it will be decided if her suit will prevail or if it will not prevail. When taking suit against someone or a company, there are many things that need to be figured out and decided upon. Federal Court Constitution federal courts have jurisdiction over civil cases between citizens of different states. If this suit were to go to trial, it would occur in Federal District Court as long as the plaintiff would be able to present sufficient legal grounds for the court to hear the case. Tanya’s suit would have jurisdiction in federal court rather than a...

Words: 848 - Pages: 4

State of Confusion Paper

...Organizational Behavior Forces MGT/307 Organizational Behavior Forces The first organization we examine is the Guardsmark Corporation. This organization is an international security contractor that provides security related services to its clients in the form of security officers to safeguard the assist and employees of each client. Based in New York, Guardsmark has clients in every state of the union and in five different countries. This privately held multimillion-dollar corporation has accomplished this by strong promotion of its mission statement, a focus on customer satisfaction, and superior service over its competition (Lipman, 2006). The Guardsmark mission statement must be read and signed off on by every employee each year. In the mission statement, Guardsmark devotes the company to quality service, integrity, continual improvement, and superior conduct by all of its employees (Lipman, 2006). Guardsmark also provides a company code of ethics, and sexual harassment policy that accompanies the mission statement. All employees also sign these documents yearly. These organizational commitments give the employees a working environment that they can feel relaxed in as well as a voice in the event of issues that may arise. These statements are not just created and hidden but rather displayed and purposefully made known to all employees. This helps retain employees in a market where external companies with higher paying positions would try to employee...

Words: 1223 - Pages: 5

State of Confusion Paper

...Angela Brown BUS/415 January 15, 2012 Week 2 Dr. Thomas Wilson Abstract Tanya owns a trucking company in the state of Denial, and is unhappy about the additional expense that will be imposed on her business due to the state of Confusion’s enacted statue. The state of Confusion enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. The hitch is manufactured by only one manufacturer in Confusion. Tanya is filing suit against the state of Confusion to overturn this statute. I will discuss what court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit and why. I will also discuss if the Confusion statute is constitutional, and my legal reasoning behind it. I will explain the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that will be applied by a court to determine the statute’s validity. In addition, I will explain if Tanya is likely to prevail on her suit and my reasoning behind it. Finally, I will discuss in detail the stages of a civil suit. State of Confusion Paper Tanya owns a trucking company in the state of Denial, and is filing suit against the state of Confusion because of their statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers to use a specific manufactures truck hitch when using their highways in Confusion. Tanya is filing this suit because it affects her business, and the additional expenses it would incur. The court that would have jurisdiction over Tanya’s case would be the federal court. A case may be brought in...

Words: 1123 - Pages: 5

State of Confusion

...State of Confusion Paper Charlotte Long BUS/415 4/11/2012 Liliya Kades What Court Will Have Jurisdiction over Tanya’s Suit? Why? According to the tenth Amendment to the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (often referred to as the Commerce clause), “Congress has authority over trade activities among the various states and foreign countries.” The statute in Confusion appears to be in the breach of this clause, therefore Tanya Trucker should file suit that will challenge the constitutionality of the statute given by the State of Confusion. The matter of where jurisdiction lies in this case would be determined by the Federal court. Therefore this suit will be filed in the Federal District Court in the State of Denial. Is The Confusion Statute Constitutional? Discuss your legal reasoning. In a case regarding Pacific Co. v Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 (1945), a state law was passed regarding the prohibition of trains. The reason for this law was to help avoid any unnecessary accidents caused by cross state trains carrying more than 70 freight cars. It was later found in violation of the Commerce Clause, in spite of the fact that it treated both in and out of state commerce equally. Actually, when put into action, the law hindered interstate commerce which caused difficulty for the trains when following the state law. This similar statute has been endorsed by the state...

Words: 898 - Pages: 4

State of Confusion

...State of Confusion Paper This paper will cover a law suit that Tanya Trucker is bringing to the State of Confusion court system. Tanya lives in the State of Denial. The state of Confusion has enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers who use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. Tanya, who owns a trucking company, is concerned with the cost of changing her towing hitches will adversely affect her business. Before Tanya files the law suit certain questions have to be asked and answered. These questions are which court will have jurisdiction over this case, is the statue constitutional, what provisions of the U.S. Constitution will be applied by the courts to determine the statue’s validity, and finally the steps to filing a civil suit. What Court will have Jurisdiction of Tanya’s Suit? Tanya Trucker’s residence is in the state of Denial and she wants to file a law suit against the state of Confusion. Therefore, the federal court will have jurisdiction over this case. “A case may be brought in federal court if there is diversity of citizenship” (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 12). Tanya Trucker can file a law suit in the federal court for violating the commerce clause of the constitution. The constitution says that the interstate commerce commission can pass laws to regulate the transportation of goods between states. Is the Confusion Statue constitutional? The statute that the State of Confusion passed is not constitutional. The interstate commerce clause...

Words: 970 - Pages: 4

State of Confusion

...State of Confusion Paper Diane M. Freeman BUS/415 April 12, 2012 Geneace Williams, J.D., Ph.D. State of Confusion Paper Tanya Trucker, who owns a trucking company in the state of Denial is unhappy with a statute enacted by the state of Confusion. The statute requires all trucks and towing trailers to use a B-type truck hitch in order to drive on the state’s highway. If a trucking company decided not to have the hitch installed, they would not be allowed to drive on the highway and would have to drive around Confusion. The statute poses added expenses on Tanya’s business and the only place to get the hitch installed is also located in the state of Confusion. To make things more unfair is the fact that the federal government does not have any regulations on truck hitches used on highways. Tanya’s plan is to file suit against the state of Confusion to overturn the statute. Tanya’s suit falls under the jurisdiction of the federal courts for two reasons. The first reason is that the suit has a federal question. Federal question cases address the U.S. Constitution, treaties, and federal statutes and regulations (Cheeseman, 2010). Tanya’s suit questions the state of Confusion’s right to enforce a statute of driving privileges on national highways. The second reason is based on diversity of citizenship. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is allowed when the parties involved live in different states or countries and this prevents state court bias...

Words: 1396 - Pages: 6

State of Confusion

...The State of Confusion BUS/415 April 2, 2012 The State of Confusion Paper The State of Confusion has enacted a statute that will require all trucks and towing trailers using its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. Tanya Trucker, owns a company in the State of Denial, does not see the new statute in the State of Confusion as fair to her business or any other foreign business. The paper will review how Tanya Trucker can suit the State of Confusion, by following all the constitutional laws in the right court, and the litigation process she must follow to suit. The Federal Court will have jurisdiction over this case because Tanya Trucker leaves in the State of Denial, and her suit will be against the State of Confusion. Cheeseman (2010) stated “A case may be brought in federal court if there is diversity of citizenship” (p. 41). Because this case will have a federal question because Tanya Trucker could file her lawsuit against the State of Confusion for violating the commerce clause under the U.S. Constitution. Cheeseman (2010) stated “The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the authority to regulate the interstate commerce.” The U.S. Supreme Court has handled numerous case, but one particular case is the Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761, 65 S. Ct. 1515, 89 L. Ed. 1915 (1945), this case was about an Arizona statute that prohibited railroads with more than 70 freight cars to travel within the state (“The Free Dictionary by...

Words: 1260 - Pages: 6

State of Confusion

...State of Confusion BUS/415 State of Confusion Tanya Trucker owns a transportation company who intends to bring a suit against the state of Confusion to overturn a statute that requires all trucks and trailers to use a B-type truck hitch. The problem is that the B-type hitch is manufactured by only one company in the state of Confusion. In order for Tanya Trucker’s equipment can drive through the state of Confusion, the driver must stop at this manufacturer and have the hitch installed, or the driver will have to drive around the state. The hitch will cause Tanya additional expenses. Tanya’s transportation company is in the state of Denial. Tanya will need to determine what court has jurisdiction over the suit and if the state of Confusion’s statute is constitutional. Tanya also needs to decide what provisions of the U.S. Constitution would be applied by the court to determine the statute’s validity. Tanya will decide if she is likely to win her case before filing suit and will need to research to see what the stages of a civil suit are. What court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit? Why? The Civil Court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit against the State of Confusion because Tanya Trucker and the State of Confusion are private entities. Civil Courts handle suits between individuals and organizations, or suits between the two, to where compensations are awarded to a victim. The Sate of Confusion can be charged in civil...

Words: 957 - Pages: 4

State of Confusion

...State of Confusion Sharika K. King July 10, 2012 Law / 421 Personal Jurisdiction is defined as the actual power possessed by the court over the participating party of the case. Prior to the court beginning to exercise this power over the party, the ruling of the constitution states that the party must meet a minimal number of contacts where the court sits. Subject Matter Jurisdiction is the opposite of Personal Jurisdiction goes to question if in fact a particular court is competent to make decisions given the level of controversial involvement. It is key to be informed that Subject Matter Jurisdiction should not be viewed an alternative approach to Personal Jurisdiction. This may be looked upon as an additional step in the process. The question at hand today is which court must Tanya Tucker file her lawsuit against the State of Confusion. In order for the determination to be made on the location, there are a few questions that are pertinent. (I) Federal: Under the federal jurisdiction the cases would have to involve any issues dealing with the constitution any other federal laws. (II) Supplemental: Any cases that contain any federal matter; however involves any issue on a state level. (III) Diverse: These are cases where the party opposing is a citizen from another state. This information allows the perception that Tanya’s case should in face be filed under the Federal Jurisdiction. Tanya’s case is fit for the federal...

Words: 585 - Pages: 3

State of Confusion

...State of Confusion Joseph McMillan University of Phoenix Business Law BUS/415 Charles Ellison June 30, 2012 State of Confusion The state of Confusion is requiring that all truck drivers that drive through their state have a specific B-type hitch on their trailers. If they do not have these hitches they are required to drive around the state of Confusion. However, the only manufacturer of these hitches is also located in Confusion as well. Tanya Trucker is from the state of Denial and plans to bring a lawsuit to remove this restriction on the grounds that this statute is unconstitutional. Tanya truck would have to file the suit within the state of Confusion at the Federal Court because this is where the restriction is being imposed but the federal government is who overseas interstate commerce. Other reasons are due to the fact that the hitch restriction is in this state and the federal government has not made any regulations themselves that require this hitch. Also, the state of Denial has no jurisdiction over the state of Confusion. This statute is not constitutional on the grounds that it is extremely restrictive. A truck cannot be expected to purchase this hitch when the only place to get it is in the state of Confusion. There is no way to drive into the state without first violating their statute to begin with because that is the only place they can first purchase the hitch. Also this standard is only set in one state and is not required in any other states...

Words: 731 - Pages: 3

State of Confusion

...State of Confusion LaJean Adame, Ben Bush, Lynda Fae, Robert Ralston, Loquenta Spencer BUS/415 July 23, 2012 James Zaccaria State of Confusion Trucking companies have the right to travel from state to state without incurring additional expenses or duties. When states impose laws that incur additional costs to the distribution companies the state is interfering with the commerce clause (Farlex, 2012). The state of Confusion has enacted a statute requiring trucks towing trailers on its highways must have a B-type hitch. The hitch is manufactured by one company within the state of Confusion. Truck drivers who do not comply with this statute must drive around the state. This statute is adding additional expenses to the transportation of loads from either changing the hitch or added gas to go around the state. Tanya Trucker owns a trucking company in the state of Denial and is not happy with the new statute because of the added expenses imposed on her business. Tanya intends to file suit against Confusion to overturn the statute. Team A will help Tanya with this suit by discovering the court that will have jurisdiction, if the statute is constitutional, which provisions of the U.S. Constitution will be applied by a court to determine the statute validity, is Tanya likely to prevail in the suit, and provide the stages of a civil suit. By discovering these details Team A will discover if Tanya will be successful with overturning the statute. Jurisdiction The state...

Words: 1552 - Pages: 7

State of Confusion

...State of Confusion There is a new statute decreed in the state of Confusion which requires all trucks and towing trailers to use a B-type hitch. However, the hitch is only being produced by one manufacturer located in Confusion. Tanya Trucker, owner of out of state trucking company, wants to file suit against this statute. In filing a suit, it must be determined which court will have jurisdiction, which state to file suit, if the statute constitutional, and which constitutional clauses will be applied to validate the statute. In these findings it can be concluded if Tanya has a viable lawsuit against the state of Confusion and stopping the statute. Court Jurisdiction According to Henry Cheeseman (2010), statutes, or codified laws, “are written laws that establish certain courses of conduct that covered parties must adhere to” (p. 12). Deciding which court has jurisdiction preceding a court case is important because it could impact the case. Filing under the wrong court can cause inconvenience to all parties involved, exceed time restrictions such as statute of limitations, and can ultimately get the case dismissed completely. State or Federal In Taynya Tucker’s situation, she is in an opposing position to a state statute. Federal courts have jurisdiction in suits that are under the U.S. Constitution, including suits that involve two or more states (United States Courts, n.d.). In addition, a diversity of citizenship jurisdiction will inhibit state court bias...

Words: 952 - Pages: 4