State of Confusion

State of Confusion
                                                                Chris Jackson
                                                                    BUS/415

                                                            September 16, 2010

                                                                Matthew Allen

                                  University of Phoenix

      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.
      The situation that Tanya wants to know is which court will have jurisdiction over her suit.   For this type of situation Tanya and the state of Confusion will be the U.S. District court.   It is not a big enough of a suit that the U.S. Supreme court would get involved.   However given the situation the Tanya Truckers’ suit could very well be decided in Civil Court.   My reason for giving this answer is because both Tanya and the State of Confusion are private owned companies.   Civil Court deals with opposing parties or organizations that have disputes over these types of issues and they will decide on whether Tanya is a victim and if so then she will be compensated for any problems the State of Confusion may have caused to her or her trucking company.
      Because of the situation is the state of Confusion statute constitutional?   What are the legal reasons that it is or is not?   The statute for... [continues]

Read full essay