State of Confusion

Business Ethic Case 3.5
Bruno Ferreyra
brunoferreyra@hotmail.com
University of Phoenix
BUS 415
April 2010

Shirley Jones vs. The National Enquirer, Inc.
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.

1. What court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit? Why?
      The Federal Court is who will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit because she is file suit against a state. Tanya could file suit against Confusion in the State Court but probably she is not going to win due to the State of Confusion is who enacted the statute. When cases are appealed from district courts, they go to a federal court of appeals which would be the case of Tanya if she decides to start the suit process in the state court.
      Inside Confusion state there are two types of highways the federal highways and the state highways. The federal highways are responsibility of the federal government and only them can create, adjust, or modify any law, or rule under those roads. The federal government gives money to the state to maintain the highways. The state highways are responsibility of the state and they can approve or reject any law or statute under those roads. In this case the State of Confusion enact a statute for all the state which is not right because the state do not have the power of create any rule to federal roads.

2. Is the Confusion statute... [continues]

Read full essay