State of Confusion Paper
BUS 415
May 16, 2011
Kevin Hiatt
State of Confusion Paper
Issue
Tanya Trucker, from the state of Denial, intends on filing suit against the state of Confusion to overturn a hitch statue. (University of Phoenix, 2010) The state of Confusion now requires all trucks to install a Cabonite Super Enhanced, (or CSE) truck hitch in order to drive through the state. This law has caused Tanya Trucker’s company to absorb additional expenses by either installing the hitch or having her drivers drive around the state of Confusion. The only company that makes said hitch is located in the state of Confusion. There are four question at hand in regards to Tanya’s potential suit; what court will have jurisdiction over the suit and why, is the Confusion statue constitutional, what provision of the U.S. Constitution will be applied by a court to determine the validity of the statute and is Tanya likely to prevail? (University of Phoenix, 2010)
Jurisdiction
Part 393 of the FMCSA (Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration) regulates the parts and accessories necessary for safe operation of a motor carrier. Subpart F dictates the coupling devices and towing methods that are to be used. (Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration, 2010) Therefore, Tanya would have to file her suit in Federal Court as a violation against the commerce clause. However, the state of Confusion courts do have jurisdiction but because Tanya is asking for an interpretation of the commerce clause she would be better served in the Federal Courts. State Courts could be biased and then Tanya would have to go through the appellate process and could potentially loose. By utilizing the FMCSA and the Commerce Clause in Federal Court Tanya’s chances of a positive outcome in her favor would be greater.
Is the statue constitutional?
Because the U.S. Department of Transportation regulates the requirements for Motor Carriers Tanya would be able to argue that the state...