...Heather Norton State of Confusion University of Phoenix BUS/415 Leah M. Peer May 17, 2011 When a state enacts a law it is enforceable and any person who enters that state is responsible to abide by that law. If all transportation departments had fair, clear, and consistent rules and procedures for how out-of-state violations should impact home-state license privileges – and those agencies took responsibility for treating motorists fairly when problems arise (National Motorists Association, 2011). The State of Confusion requires Tanya Trucker and any other trucker to use a specific trailer hitch, when they drive through the state. Tanya Trucker is the owner of a trucking company, and she is upset that the Federal Government has not made any attempts to regulate the truck hitches used in the nation’s highways. In this paper the subject to analyze and determine what court has jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit, is the Confusion statue constitutional, the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that will be applied by a court to determine validity of the statue, is Tanya likely to prevail on her suit, and stages of a civil suit. The State of Confusion enacted a ruling requiring all truck and towing trailers that use Highways in confusion are required to use a B-type trailer hitch. This specific hitch is only produced by one manufacturer based in Confusion. This regulation states truck drivers need to attach the B-type hitch on their truck or they will be forced to...
Words: 1314 - Pages: 6
...State of Confusion LaJean Adame, Ben Bush, Lynda Fae, Robert Ralston, Loquenta Spencer BUS/415 July 23, 2012 James Zaccaria State of Confusion Trucking companies have the right to travel from state to state without incurring additional expenses or duties. When states impose laws that incur additional costs to the distribution companies the state is interfering with the commerce clause (Farlex, 2012). The state of Confusion has enacted a statute requiring trucks towing trailers on its highways must have a B-type hitch. The hitch is manufactured by one company within the state of Confusion. Truck drivers who do not comply with this statute must drive around the state. This statute is adding additional expenses to the transportation of loads from either changing the hitch or added gas to go around the state. Tanya Trucker owns a trucking company in the state of Denial and is not happy with the new statute because of the added expenses imposed on her business. Tanya intends to file suit against Confusion to overturn the statute. Team A will help Tanya with this suit by discovering the court that will have jurisdiction, if the statute is constitutional, which provisions of the U.S. Constitution will be applied by a court to determine the statute validity, is Tanya likely to prevail in the suit, and provide the stages of a civil suit. By discovering these details Team A will discover if Tanya will be successful with overturning the statute. Jurisdiction The state of...
Words: 1552 - Pages: 7
...Renee A. Matthews Business Law BUS/415 Version 8 State of Confusion Paper Professor Stacy Mealey Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the jurisdiction of federal courts. Federal Courts have limited jurisdiction to hear cases involving Federal questions and diversity of citizenship as read in Chapter 3. The federal courts have jurisdiction over cases dealing with federal questions which are cases that are under the US Constitution, treaties, federal statutes and regulations. There is no limit on the dollar amount on cases that are assigned to federal court. When it comes onto diversity of citizenship, cases are brought to the attention of thee federal court which is to protect from court bias. Federal Courts has full jurisdiction over cases dealing with federal crimes, antitrust, bankruptcy any suits against the United States. According to Chapter 3 State Courts has jurisdiction over cases that federal court do not have jurisdiction to hear. It usually involves state law. The state of Confusion requires all trucks and towing trailers that use its highway to use a B-type truck hitch. It is manufacturer by only one company in Confusion. In order to drive through Confusion the new statute requires that each truck and or towing trailer uses a B-type truck hitch. Tanya Trucker, is the owner of the trucking company and feels that the new statute is unfair. Tanya wants to sue Confusion for the extra expenses that her company would incur...
Words: 1090 - Pages: 5
...State of Confusion Nishman N. Huffman III Bus/415 Business Law July 25, 2011 Kathryn Harris In this day in age, new business is always looking for a way to make a fast dollar. There is an old saying of “he who has the gold makes the rules”! In this particular case the state of Confusion has found a way to make money. Now to give more background on this particular situation, the state of Confusion has set a law in place that requires all trucks that are towing trailers use a special type of hitch that is only manufactured in the state of Confusion. The state of Confusion has created a new B-type truck hitch. This hitch is supposed to be safer for the truckers to use on the highways. Since the state of Confusion has enacted this statute, every truck that drives on the highways and in the state of Confusion, must use the B-type hitch. The outcome of this statute is that each and every truck that drives through the state of Confusion must have the B-type hitch installed, and if it is not installed, truckers will not be able to drive on the highways in Confusion, they will have to go around which of course will add time to their commutes. The federal government has not gotten wind of this change by the state of confusion and if it has, they have not made any attempt to pose a law to regulate this new statute from the state of Confusion. Basically the federal government should do something to standardize the types of hitches that are being used. One could only wonder if...
Words: 1053 - Pages: 5
...State of Confusion BUS/415 March 21, 2012 State of Confusion The State of Confusion passed a law that requires trucks, semi-trucks, and tow trailers that uses its interstate freeways to use a bravo-style truck tow hitch. The problem with this hitch is that only one company makes these types of truck hitches within the State of Confusion. The consequence of this law is that any drivers or truckers who want to drive their way through Confusion has to stop and have the new one mounted, or make their way around Confusion. The national administration has not made any effort to legalize the truck hitches used on the country’s freeways. One trucking company owner in the state of Denial name Tanya Trucker is not content with the extra cost this law inflicts on her company. Her intentions are to file a suit against the State of Confusion to turn over the law. In Tanya Trucker case versus the State of Confusion, the United States District Court should have the authority over the suit. This law clashes with the Commerce Clause that legalizes divided highway business, so this case should be heard in U.S. District Court. The District Courts listen to cases involving federal issues and this law hinders the actions that influence legalizes divided highway business are federally mandated. The Supremacy Clause establishes that the Federal Constitution, treaties, federal laws, and federal regulations are the supreme of the land (Cheeseman, 2010). The Commerce Clause gives the...
Words: 931 - Pages: 4
...Running head: STATE OF CONFUSION PAPER State of Confusion Paper Debra Brown University Of Phoenix Bus. - 415 Business Law SB09BSB10 Mr. Mark Oertel October 13, 2010 State of Confusion Paper This paper will attempt to analyze the case which has been brought upon the State of Confusion by Tanya Trucker, who has a trucking company that she owns in the State of Denial. According to the scenario, “The state of Confusion has enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that uses its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. This hitch is manufactured by only one manufacturer in Confusion” (University of Phoenix, 2010). In order for Tanya Trucker to operate her trucking businesses, she would have to buy the hitches in Confusion were they are manufactured by only one manufacturer; in order to go through this one state, or go around the State of Confusion. Even though Tanya Trucker knows that interstate trucking is a huge and profitable business, and could possibly inflict an economic hardship not just on her company in Denial, but on many others trucking companies that want to go though the State of Confusion, but can’t because the manufacture of the (B-Type) truck hitch is only located in the state of Confusion. Therefore, Tanya Trucker has decided to file a lawsuit against the State of Confusion. She feels that the statue is unconstitutional, and may cause problems not just for her living in Denial, but for other out of state truck drivers as well...
Words: 1012 - Pages: 5
...State of Confusion Paper University Of Phoenix Business Laws BUS/415 August 17, 2011 State of Confusion Paper In the case of Tanya Trucker v. State of Confusion the U.S. District Court should have jurisdiction over the suit. The case involving the State of Confusion which imposed a statute that required all trucks and towing trailers that passed through the state to install a B-type hitch that is only manufactured by a company operating in the State of Confusion. This statute conflicts with the Commerce Clause which regulates interstate commerce thus should be heard in the appropriate U.S. District Court. U.S. District Courts hear cases involving federal questions and being that the statute interferes with the activities that affect interstate commerce that is federally regulated. The Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, treaties, federal laws and federal regulations are the supreme law of the land (Cheeseman, 2010). State laws that conflict with valid federal laws are considered unconstitutional. The U.S. Commerce Clause gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This clause also allows the federal government to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce. Since the trucks would be passing through the State of Confusion it falls under interstate commerce regulation. The statute directly and substantially conflicts with the federal government’s authority to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce...
Words: 935 - Pages: 4
...State of Confusion Geoffrey Goebel BUS/415 March 21, 2012 Tracy Bomar-Howze, JD, Esq. State of Confusion The state of Confusion endorsed a statute that requires trucks and tractor trailers that use its freeways to attach a B-type truck hitch. The hitch in question is produced by one particular company in Confusion. This statute mandates that any trucker who proceeds to drive through Confusion is ordered to stop and have this hitch mounted on his or her truck, or drive around the state. The federal government has not anticipated the need to standardize the truck hitches used on state traveled highways and therefore no action has been taken. Tanya Trucker, who is the owner of a trucking business in the state of Denial, is unhappy about the supplementary expense this statute imposes on her business. Tanya plans to file suit against Confusion to upend the law. Jurisdiction, determining if the Confusion statute is constitutional, provisions of the U.S. Constitution applied to determine validity, the outcome, and the stages of the civil suit are considered in this case. Court Jurisdiction and Confusion Statute * The first order of operations is to determine what court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit and why. Jurisdiction refers to which state or court system has the power to oversee litigations with regard to a court case (Butera, 2012). When determining...
Words: 1167 - Pages: 5
...State of Confusion BUS/415 13 July 2011 State of Confusion In the case of Tanya Trucker versus State of Confusion the U.S. District Court should have jurisdiction over the suit. The case involving the State of Confusion that imposed a statute that required all trucks and towing trailers that delivery through the state to install a B-type hitch only manufactured by a company operating in the State of Confusion. This statute conflicts with the Commerce Clause that regulates interstate commerce thus should be heard in the appropriate U.S. District Court. U.S. District Courts hear cases involving federal questions, and because the statute interferes with the activities that affect interstate commerce federally regulate The Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, treaties, federal laws and federal regulations are the supreme law of the land (Cheeseman, 2010). State laws that conflict with valid federal laws considered unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes. The Commerce Clause also gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This clause also allows the federal government to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce. Because the trucks would be passing through the State of Confusion it falls under interstate commerce regulation. The statute directly and substantially...
Words: 930 - Pages: 4
...State of Confusion Joseph McMillan University of Phoenix Business Law BUS/415 Charles Ellison June 30, 2012 State of Confusion The state of Confusion is requiring that all truck drivers that drive through their state have a specific B-type hitch on their trailers. If they do not have these hitches they are required to drive around the state of Confusion. However, the only manufacturer of these hitches is also located in Confusion as well. Tanya Trucker is from the state of Denial and plans to bring a lawsuit to remove this restriction on the grounds that this statute is unconstitutional. Tanya truck would have to file the suit within the state of Confusion at the Federal Court because this is where the restriction is being imposed but the federal government is who overseas interstate commerce. Other reasons are due to the fact that the hitch restriction is in this state and the federal government has not made any regulations themselves that require this hitch. Also, the state of Denial has no jurisdiction over the state of Confusion. This statute is not constitutional on the grounds that it is extremely restrictive. A truck cannot be expected to purchase this hitch when the only place to get it is in the state of Confusion. There is no way to drive into the state without first violating their statute to begin with because that is the only place they can first purchase the hitch. Also this standard is only set in one state and is not required in any other states....
Words: 731 - Pages: 3
...State of Confusion Paper Charlotte Long BUS/415 4/11/2012 Liliya Kades What Court Will Have Jurisdiction over Tanya’s Suit? Why? According to the tenth Amendment to the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (often referred to as the Commerce clause), “Congress has authority over trade activities among the various states and foreign countries.” The statute in Confusion appears to be in the breach of this clause, therefore Tanya Trucker should file suit that will challenge the constitutionality of the statute given by the State of Confusion. The matter of where jurisdiction lies in this case would be determined by the Federal court. Therefore this suit will be filed in the Federal District Court in the State of Denial. Is The Confusion Statute Constitutional? Discuss your legal reasoning. In a case regarding Pacific Co. v Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 (1945), a state law was passed regarding the prohibition of trains. The reason for this law was to help avoid any unnecessary accidents caused by cross state trains carrying more than 70 freight cars. It was later found in violation of the Commerce Clause, in spite of the fact that it treated both in and out of state commerce equally. Actually, when put into action, the law hindered interstate commerce which caused difficulty for the trains when following the state law. This similar statute has been endorsed by the state of...
Words: 898 - Pages: 4
...State of Confusion BUS 415 Business Law November 1, 2010 State of Confusion Tanya Trucker owns an out-of-state trucking company and resides in the State of Denial. For the purpose of conducting her business, she frequently finds the need to drive her truck across other states; including the State of Confusion. Recently, the State of Confusion ratified a state law demanding all towing trailers and trucks traveling through the State of Confusion to have the B-type truck hitch installed on the vehicle. Truck owners and drivers choosing not to install the B-type truck hitch are not allowed permission to use the highways of the State of Confusion. Instead of driving through the State of Confusion, truck operators must drive around on the perimeter of the state, which will cost the trucking companies extra time and money. State and court system jurisdiction handling Tanya’s suit and explain Because the State of Confusion acted in violation of the Commerce clause contained within the U. S. Constitution, the federal court becomes the filing jurisdiction for Tanya Trucker’s lawsuit. Although the 10th Amendment to the Constitution sanctions states the power to regulate intrastate commerce, the Commerce clause included within the Constitution of the United States. In particular Article One, Section Eight, Clause Three grants Congressional body authority of commerce regulation and trade actions conducted with the Indian tribes, other states, and foreign nations. The Commerce Clause...
Words: 1109 - Pages: 5
...Running head: STATE OF CONFUSION PAPER State of Confusion Paper BUS/415 February 14, 2012 State of Confusion Paper This paper will serve to briefly discuss the case between the state of Confusion and Tanya Trucker. The state of Confusion enacted a statute that requires all trucks to use a B-type truck hitch. Trucks and trailers who did not have the B-type truck hitch had two options; the trucks would have to stop and have a B-type hitch installed or refrain from using Confusion’s highways. At the time of statute, the federal government had no regulations on truck hitches or type requirements. Ironically, the B-type hitch's are manufactured by one company in Confusion. Tanya Trucker, the owner of a trucking company outside the state of Confusion has trucks that use Confusion’s highways. Tanya has serious concerns about the statute and the expense it imposes on her business. In an effort to eliminate additional expenses and truck hitch regulations, Tanya will file suit in an attempt to overturn the statute. Jurisdiction Tanya Trucker's company is located in the state of Denial and is filing suit against the state of Confusion. This lawsuit will involve citizens of different states. According to Cheeseman (2010), "A case may be brought to federal court if there is diversity of citizenship"(p. 41). Diversity of citizenship also requires that all cases exceed $75,000. If this requirement is not met that it...
Words: 1018 - Pages: 5
...State of Confusion Kelly Jensen University of Phoenix Business Law Bus/415 Tanya Trucker, owner of her own trucking company in the state of Denial wants to file a lawsuit against the state of Confusion in order to overturn a statute in Confusion that requires trucks and towing trailers to use a “B-type truck hitch” which only can be purchased in the state of Confusion where it is manufactured. The statute in turn forces trucking companies that drive through the state of Confusion to purchase the hitch in order to comply with the state statute. The other option to avoid purchasing the hitch, which is only “good” in the state of Confusion, is to drive around the state. The statute causes trucking companies increased costs and violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The commerce clause gives the federal government the exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce (Cheeseman, 2010). Since two states are involved, if the legal question was that of state law, such as occurs in a car accident, then Tanya would file her suit in state court in either the state of Confusion or Denial. If the suit involved state law and damages or compensatory damages exceeded $75,000 than a federal court could hear the case applying state law. This is known as diversity of citizenship. The criteria for diversity jurisdiction is that the citizens, including corporations, are from different states; a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country; and, a citizen...
Words: 1160 - Pages: 5
...State of Confusion Paper BUS 415 December 5, 2011 Adriane Jemmott State of Confusion Paper This paper is an analysis of the case of Tanya Trucker v. State of Confusion. Facts “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” (Axia of University of Phoenix, 2011). Jurisdiction First, it must be determined in which court the lawsuit should be filed. Tanya Trucker lives in the state of Denial and the statute she plans to contest is in the state of Confusion. This case should be tried in federal court. This issue involves interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause because Tanya Trucker’s company moves goods between states. Interstate commerce is the commerce moved between different states. The Commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with Indian tribes, commerce with foreign nations, and interstate...
Words: 1041 - Pages: 5
