State of Confusion

State of Confusion
Wanda Bickerstaff
BUS 415 – Business Law
December 4, 2010
Paul Croushore

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 (University of Phoenix, 2010).” For this reason Tanya Trucker intends to file suit against the state of Confusion because this statute would adversely affect Tanya’s business’ profits, and she hopes to overturn the statute in a civil suit against the state. This paper will determine which court has jurisdiction, explore whether or not the Confusion statute is constitutional, decide what provisions of the U.S. Constitution will be applied by a court to determine the statute’s validity, and list the stages of a civil suit,
Court Jurisdiction
Because Tanya Trucker resides in the state of Denial and she is placing suit against the state of Confusion, therefore, the federal court will have jurisdiction over this case. Cheeseman (2010) indicated that a case may be brought in federal court if there is diversity of citizenship. Diversity of cititzenship takes place if the person instigating the suit lives in a different state from the party being sued.
Deciding Constitutionality
The state of Confusion enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. Only one manufacturer in Confusion manufactures this hitch. 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.   According to Cheeseman (2010), “State and local laws cannot unduly burden interstate commerce.   If they do, they are unconstitutional because they violate the Commerce Clause.”   However, “if the federal government has chosen not to regulate an area that it has the power to regulate under its Commerce Clause powers, that area of commerce is considered a dormant Commerce Clause power (Cheeseman,... [continues]

Read full essay