In the case of the State of confusion scenario, there could be many questions, and hypothetical answers surrounding this case. However, in this case both parties, Tanya Trucker and the State of Confusion are technically private entities; therefore, logically both parties should go to a civil court. In civil court, the plaintiff Tanya Trucker can charge State of Confusion in civil litigation and reimburses the plaintiff for loses caused by the defendant’s behavior of forcing it to use a certain type of hitch. As a consequence the burden of proof first lies with the plaintiff and then with the defendant to refute the evidence provided by the plaintiff.
Assuming the case is discussing the U.S. Constitution, and then the case involves technically two states, so there will be many actions occurring at many different levels. A state does not have the ability to do something to maintain the safety on its roads, which is limited in part by the Interstate Commerce Act, the Interstate Commission, and the Department of Transportation. With no modifications coming from other states, this will remain something that will be decided at the level of the Supreme Court, do to the fact that the Supreme Court must hear anything related to Interstate Commerce.
Tanya could file suit in the federal district court, although she could file suit in a state court in Confusion. The statute is unconstitutional as it imposes an impermissible burden on interstate commerce and is comparable to an import duty to drive through the state that was prohibited with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The suit starts with a complaint alleging the unconstitutional nature of the statute based on the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Injunctive relief will be sought in the complaint and probably under a motion for preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the statue. There would be an answer and responsive papers on the motion. The court would decide the motion. Preliminary...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document