...State of Confusion Scenario: 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. (University of Phoenix, 2010) Tanya Trucker intends to file suit against the state of Confusion because of the enacted statute that requires all trucks and towing trailers to use the specific truck hitch while in Confusion. Tanya will file a civil case against the state of Confusion, as this statute adversely affects Tanya’s business profits. Tanya hopes to overturn the statute in this suit against the state. Overturning this statute will allow Tanya’s business and other truck and trailer businesses to eliminate this extra expense. We will examine the list of stages in a civil suit, to determine which court has jurisdiction, and explore whether or not the Confusion statute is constitutional. To begin the stages of a civil case, Tanya must find an attorney who can represent her, then gather the finances to pay the attorney’s fees. With the help of an attorney, Tanya will be able to take the first step of the civil suit. Below is a list of the seven stages of a civil case and a brief...
Words: 1442 - Pages: 6
...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
...The State of Confusion BUS/415 April 2, 2012 The State of Confusion Paper The State of Confusion has enacted a statute that will require all trucks and towing trailers using its highways to use a B-type truck hitch. Tanya Trucker, owns a company in the State of Denial, does not see the new statute in the State of Confusion as fair to her business or any other foreign business. The paper will review how Tanya Trucker can suit the State of Confusion, by following all the constitutional laws in the right court, and the litigation process she must follow to suit. The Federal Court will have jurisdiction over this case because Tanya Trucker leaves in the State of Denial, and her suit will be against the State of Confusion. Cheeseman (2010) stated “A case may be brought in federal court if there is diversity of citizenship” (p. 41). Because this case will have a federal question because Tanya Trucker could file her lawsuit against the State of Confusion for violating the commerce clause under the U.S. Constitution. Cheeseman (2010) stated “The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the authority to regulate the interstate commerce.” The U.S. Supreme Court has handled numerous case, but one particular case is the Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761, 65 S. Ct. 1515, 89 L. Ed. 1915 (1945), this case was about an Arizona statute that prohibited railroads with more than 70 freight cars to travel within the state (“The Free Dictionary by Farlex...
Words: 1260 - Pages: 6
...State of Confusion BUS 415 Tanya Trucker, owner of a trucking company in the state of Denial, plans to file suit against the State of Confusion to challenge the State’s new statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use their highways to use a B-type truck hitch produced only in Confusion. Although Tanya’s business is located in Denial, she must use Confusion’s highways to conduct business. Tanya must incur additional business costs to comply with Confusion’s statute so her trucks can continue driving through the state. Because the federal government has not made any attempt to regulate the truck hitches used on the nation’s highways, Tanya feels that the statute is a violation of the federal commerce clause, and hopes to have the statute overturned. What Court has Jurisdiction? The specific components of a case aid in determining the jurisdiction over a suit. For Tanya Trucker’s case, she may file in either a state or federal court as they both have jurisdiction. However, it would be pointless for Tanya to file suit in the State of Confusion where the trailer hitches are produced, sold, and required for transport. This could cause court bias, as Tanya’s company is located in another state. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction allows a state case to be brought to a federal court if the lawsuit involves citizens from different states and involves a nonfederal question. The federal court must apply the appropriate state’s law in deciding the case, and the...
Words: 1720 - Pages: 7
... You will also need to review your own citations and references since WritePoint capability in this area is limited. NOTE: WritePoint comments are computer-generated writing and grammar suggestions inviting the consideration and analysis of the writer; they are not infallible statements of right/wrong, and they should not be used as grading elements. Also, at present, WritePoint cannot detect quotations or block-quotes, so comments in those areas should be ignored. Please see the other helpful writing resources in the Tutorials and Guides section of the Center for Writing Excellence. Thank you for using WritePoint. State of Confusion Marlon Sutton Bus/415 March/28/2012 Aaron Towns State of Confusion Tanya Trucker who owns a trucking company is filling a suit that involves the state of confusion. Requiring all [Writing suggestion: "All" or "all of" used as an intensifier very often can be removed with no loss of meaning] trucks and towing trailer, that [Remove comma before "that" preceding a restrictive phrase (otherwise replace "that" with "which")] use the highways to use a B-type truck hitch. Tanya Tucker and other trucker feel [Style suggestion: if "felt" is used in the sense of "to believe or think," it is a cliché and vague; use a form of "believe" or "think"] that this is imposing expenses which [Use "that" for a restrictive phrase (or place a comma before "which")] are unfair because of this action filling a...
Words: 1903 - Pages: 8
...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
...Tanya v. the state of Confusion Tanya Trucker v. the state of Confusion is the case about a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that utilize the highways of the state of Confusion to have a B-type truck hitch. The lawsuit takes place because Tanya Trucker, a trucking company owner and a citizen of the state of Denial as well, finds it unfair for her to pay for the additional expenses for installing the particular type truck hitch that is only manufactured in the state of Confusion. The case is taking into consideration of what court will have the jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit and the reasons. Whether the Confusion statute is constitutional or not is also a big question to challenge the legal reasoning. Especially to determine the validity of the statue, the application of what provisions of the U.S. Constitution should be utilized properly, and the possibility for Tanya to prevail on her suit is encountering with all the legal reasoning as well. The court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit and the reasons This is the case involving the diversity of citizenship between the state of Confusion and the citizen of the state of Denial; therefore, the court that should have jurisdiction over the lawsuit is the federal District Court in the sate of Confusion where the statute enacted. If there is diversity of citizenship, federal court may be chosen to have jurisdiction (Cheeseman, 2010). Apparently, the federal government has never regulated...
Words: 1012 - Pages: 5
...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
...State of Confusion BUS/415 State of Confusion Tanya Trucker owns a transportation company who intends to bring a suit against the state of Confusion to overturn a statute that requires all trucks and trailers to use a B-type truck hitch. The problem is that the B-type hitch is manufactured by only one company in the state of Confusion. In order for Tanya Trucker’s equipment can drive through the state of Confusion, the driver must stop at this manufacturer and have the hitch installed, or the driver will have to drive around the state. The hitch will cause Tanya additional expenses. Tanya’s transportation company is in the state of Denial. Tanya will need to determine what court has jurisdiction over the suit and if the state of Confusion’s statute is constitutional. Tanya also needs to decide what provisions of the U.S. Constitution would be applied by the court to determine the statute’s validity. Tanya will decide if she is likely to win her case before filing suit and will need to research to see what the stages of a civil suit are. What court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit? Why? The Civil Court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit against the State of Confusion because Tanya Trucker and the State of Confusion are private entities. Civil Courts handle suits between individuals and organizations, or suits between the two, to where compensations are awarded to a victim. The Sate of Confusion can be charged in civil litigation...
Words: 957 - Pages: 4
...State of Confusion BUS/415 March 14, 2011 Frank Poe State of Confusion States within the United States of America have the power to enact statutes for the health and well-being of its residents as long as it does not interfere with the Supremacy Clause, which states “that the federal Constitution, treaties, federal laws, and federal regulations are the supreme law of the land” (Cheeseman, 2010, p.70). With this in mind, the state of Confusion enacted a statute that requires all trucks and towing trailers on its highways to use a B-type hitch that is only manufactured by one manufacturer in Confusion. The statute states that trucks or towing trailers without this hitch must purchase and install the hitch or drive around the state of Confusion. The state of Confusion believes it is within its rights to enact such a statute because the federal government does not regulate the type of hitches on trucks using the nation’s highways. Tanya Trucker, the owner of a trucking company in the state of Denial, believes this statute is unconstitutional because of the additional expenses this statute imposes on her business. She intends to file a suit against the state of Confusion to overturn the statute. The following will examine the suit to determine the court that will have jurisdiction, the constitutionality of the statute, the likely outcome, and the stages of a civil lawsuit. Court Jurisdiction When deciding which court should hear the lawsuit, some might think...
Words: 1485 - Pages: 6
...State of Confusion What court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit? Why? * Initially I thought that one of the State of Confusion’s general-jurisdiction civil trial courts would hear a matter like this. However, when I looked at the scope and magnitude of the effect of the State of Confusion’s statue, Tanya would be wise to file it in a federal court, in particular a U.S. District Court. This case would be classified as a possible diversity in citizenship since it involves a citizen from a different state, Denial. Is the Confusion statute constitutional? Discuss your legal reasoning * No. The statue inherently provides for unfair competition and possible antitrust issues. By requiring a particular hitch produced only by a certain manufacturer only in its state, the State of Confusion has created an environment whereby there is no fair competition. On the surface it is in direct conflict with the spirit of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution which seeks to foster free trade between states. What provisions of the U.S. Constitution will be applied by a court to determine the statute’s validity? * The federal Motor Carrier Act enacted by Congress in 1980 is one provision that the statue could be measured against. Its initial purpose was to deregulate the trucking industry on a whole to make it more competitive. There is also the clause in the Commerce Clause that allows the regulation of interstate commerce by the federal government. Is Tanya...
Words: 446 - Pages: 2
...State of Confusion Sharika K. King July 10, 2012 Law / 421 Personal Jurisdiction is defined as the actual power possessed by the court over the participating party of the case. Prior to the court beginning to exercise this power over the party, the ruling of the constitution states that the party must meet a minimal number of contacts where the court sits. Subject Matter Jurisdiction is the opposite of Personal Jurisdiction goes to question if in fact a particular court is competent to make decisions given the level of controversial involvement. It is key to be informed that Subject Matter Jurisdiction should not be viewed an alternative approach to Personal Jurisdiction. This may be looked upon as an additional step in the process. The question at hand today is which court must Tanya Tucker file her lawsuit against the State of Confusion. In order for the determination to be made on the location, there are a few questions that are pertinent. (I) Federal: Under the federal jurisdiction the cases would have to involve any issues dealing with the constitution any other federal laws. (II) Supplemental: Any cases that contain any federal matter; however involves any issue on a state level. (III) Diverse: These are cases where the party opposing is a citizen from another state. This information allows the perception that Tanya’s case should in face be filed under the Federal Jurisdiction. Tanya’s case is fit for the federal proceedings...
Words: 585 - Pages: 3
...State of Confusion The answer to the question about what court will have jurisdiction power over Tanya's suit could be formulated as stated: It is the federal law who takes superiority and takes charge of any conflicts that happen within the state and locally (Cheeseman, 2010). With this, it is therefore the federal law that will take care of Tanya’s suit. However, a statement from the same case also affirms that if the claimant is bringing an existing case to the jurisdiction in state court, then the defendant may opt to bring the case to the state court to be decided, or may pull it out from the federal court. If a certain case is no longer appropriate to be sent to the federal court, then it is only proper to bring it to the right state court. It would be irrational and pointless for Tanya to file a suit inside the state that has passed this statute, if it is really the state of Confusion that put up the statute that requires the use of B-type truck hitch by all towing trailers and trucks that use the state roads. The state itself enacted that law, so there is really no way for just one person make the state take back that law. The only way for it to be gone is if they are already forced by the government to do so. Unless that happens, then the statue will still remain implemented. Therefore, in this case, both the federal law and state court have the power of jurisdiction. However, it is safer for Tanya to just file it in the federal law, since the state implemented the...
Words: 1398 - Pages: 6
...State of Confusion Raymont Curry BUS/415 May 9, 2011 Instructor: Walter M. Pence State of Confusion Tanya Tucker intends to file a suit against the State of Confusion to overturn their statute regarding the truck hitch. Tanya will be filing the suit in the Federal Courts as a un- constitutional restraint on trade or violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. The Clause states that the United States Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations and among several states and Indian Tribes “The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states the Commerce Clause power and all of the other enumerated powers may be implemented by the power. The United States Constitution is clearer about the role of Congress when dealing with the Interstate Commerce and would depend on the circumstances presented by a specific case. The State of Confusion statute would be constitutional if Confusion could make a rational relationship for legislation. The State of Confusion would need to point out specific safety reasoning for enacting the statute, not just for the purpose of restraining trade and commerce among the states or giving a company an unfair advantage. It is the strict province of the federal government to enact safety requirements for vehicles and the State of Confusion is...
Words: 729 - Pages: 3
...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
