State of Confusion Paper

State of Confusion Paper
University of Phoenix

BUS/415
September 16, 2010

What court will have jurisdiction over Tanya's suit? Why?

      Due to the fact that the two parties are based in different states (called "diversity of citizenship"), the court that has jurisdiction is the U.S. District Court over the states of Denial and Confusion.   It will more than likely not be the U.S. Supreme Court because it is rare for them to have original jurisdiction over its cases.

Is the Confusion statute constitutional? Discuss your legal reasoning.

      No; because in this case the Confusion statute is unconstitutional. This is due to it violating the dormant commerce clause. This particular clause declares that states cannot implement intrastate commerce regulations that place a “substantial burden on interstate commerce,”; and that is exactly what Confusion’s regulation does.

What provisions of the U.S. Constitution will be applied by a court to determine the statute's validity?

      In this case, a court will evaluate whether Confusion’s regulation places a “substantial burden on interstate commerce” according to the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution). Furthermore, the court will likely give consideration to Gibbons v. Ogden, as discussed below.

Is Tanya likely to prevail on her suit? Explain the reasons for your answer.

      In this case—yes she is likely to be successful. It does appear that Confusion’s regulation places a “substantial burden on interstate commerce.” In addition this case also conflicts with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). In that case of Gibbons, the state of New York tried to grant a steamboat monopoly to one individual. Finally, in this case, the Confusion regulation more than likely would essentially do the same thing—give a monopoly to the single Confusion manufacturer making the hitches.

Set forth in detail the stages of a... [continues]

Read full essay