State of Confusion Paper Federal and state constitutions, administrative regulations and statutes are the primary source of applicable law in the United States (Enotes, 2010). In addition, the constitutional provisions affect how business is conducted in this country. The case in this paper deals with Tanya Trucker versus the state of Confusion. Tanya will rely on the American legal system to overturn the state of Confusion statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use its
Words: 1216 - Pages: 5
Sussex County Community College Business Law I Chapter 3 Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution We're the jury, dread our fury! William S. Gilbert I. Teacher to Student Dialogue The pictures painted of trials and courtrooms by modern television shows and movies are decidedly unrealistic. How trial attorneys would love to have a spotlight glow brighter and brighter on them as they stand giving an impassioned closing argument, while the rest of the room sits in darkness, like Paul Newman
Words: 2489 - Pages: 10
In this scenario, the state of Confusion passed a law that requires all trucks and towing trailers that use Confusion highways to use a B-type truck hitch. The hitch is made by one company in Confusion, and any trucker who wants to drive through the state of Confusion has to stop and have the B-type hitch installed or they would have to 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 trucking company
Words: 1355 - Pages: 6
plaintiff then has ten days to file an answer to the defendant's counterclaim. If either party fails to comply with the time limits, the other side may ask the court to rule in his or her favor by default. Default is entered when a party does not appear or file papers, and the judge may enter a decision or judgment to be collected as any other decision. It should be noted that most time limits may be extended by agreement (stipulation) of the parties by an order of the court.
Words: 1386 - Pages: 6
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
Words: 1442 - Pages: 6
State of Confusion Paper Diane M. Freeman BUS/415 April 12, 2012 Geneace Williams, J.D., Ph.D. State of Confusion Paper Tanya Trucker, who owns a trucking company in the state of Denial is unhappy with a statute enacted by the state of Confusion. The statute requires all trucks and towing trailers to use a B-type truck hitch in order to drive on the state’s highway. If a trucking company decided not to have the hitch installed, they would not be allowed to drive on the highway and
Words: 1396 - Pages: 6
State of Confusion Paper With the state of Confusion requiring trucks and towing trailers to use a B-type truck hitch on its highways, Confusion the only state that manufactures such a hitch, naturally Tanya is not happy that she must install the hitch or drive around the state. As she determines to file suit against the state of Confusion to overturn the statute, she may find value in reviewing certain points. First, Tanya should determine what court will have jurisdiction over her suit and why
Words: 1205 - Pages: 5
State of Confusion BUS415 State of Confusion Paper Jurisdiction The jurisdiction that holds the suit Tanya wishes to file would be the Federal District Court. The statute appointed by Confusion ordering all trucks and trailers to use the [pic]B-type hitch is a matter of interstate commerce. Tanya will be able to file a suite in her own state of Denial over the state law in Confusion because this matter will lie in federal courts. Is the Confusion statute constitutional
Words: 1558 - Pages: 7
Facts: 1. May 1988, defendants executed a promissory note in which they promised to pay to New York City Waterfront Associates, L.P. the sum of $88,643 plus interest. 2. Defendants have made no payments required by the promissory note and are default of their obligations under the Note. 3. Defendants stated that they were mislead and fraudulently induced into making the investment by the accountant, Robert Perry Dubin. 4. Defendants argued that the venue is improper in New York based
Words: 415 - Pages: 2
Statute of Limitation of 1 year was tolled under the Continuing injury Doctrine in Brumfiel’s FDCPA claim. C. Whether the court erred in denying Brumfiel’s Motion to Dismiss on grounds that the Trust had standing to foreclose and denying her defenses including constitutional defense. D. Whether the Court erred Granting Plf’s Summary Judgment, where the Trustee’s status as holder was disputed as sufficient to foreclose. E. Whether the Court erred by holding that Brumfiel may not, as a non-party, challenge
Words: 10170 - Pages: 41
