Commerce Clausee Case Study

United States was decided by the Supreme Court in 1945. The case involved police brutality were the victim was killed. The federal government prosecuted the police officers after the State of Georgia refused to do so. M. Claude Screws was Sheriff of Baker County, Georgia. Screws knew the victim well, they had been in confrontation over a pistol seized from the victim Robert Hall. On January 29, 1943 Screws had two officers arrest Hall on charges of stealing a tire. The three men drove Hall to the town square and beat him with their fists and a two pound blackjack in front of the courthouse. They did it in plain sight, as residents watched from their homes. The State of Georgia failed to bring charges on the three men, Screws and the other two officers even though repeated suits by the federal government were placed, “a jury in Albany, Georgia, convicted all three defendants of violating Section 242, rejecting the officers’ claim that the beating had been justified in self-defense.”(Watford, 2014) Section 242 was too vague and could not be used to trial because the defendants argued they were not sure which rights it protected. There was a debate between the Supreme Court Justices if the vagueness of Section 242 would lead to a mistrial. The Court’s formation of Section 242 had introduced a “radical revolution” in the balance of power between the National Government and the States. Justice Frankfurter argued that, “because the defendants violated Georgia law by committing murder, this was a purely local crime-enforcement matter that had always been left to the domain of the States”(Watford, 2014) The federal government were now going to be able to make all lawless acts by any police officer a federal crime and Section 242 had survived. The survival of Section 242 meant that the federal government would have a part in fighting the well-known problem of police brutality to African Americans and other minorities, mainly in the South. It was

10. Dan hires Eve to perform at Dan 's Club, but Eve later breaches the agreement to accept a higher-paying job at First Star Arena. Dan files a suit gainst Eve. The court will most likley: award damages to Dan.

A controversy arose between Ogden, who had obtained the license from Fulton and Livingston, and Gibbons, who had obtained his license through the United States government. Ogden petitioned the New York Court to “enjoin” Gibbons, his formal partner, from continuing with this business in that state. The Court favored Ogden and granted the injunction and Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the right for Congress to have vast powers. According to the Supreme Court, Congress can regulate who can enter into a monopoly and this case made a distinction between interstate and intrastate within a state. Although the federal government has not been specifically delegated the power to regulate commerce within a certain state that does not mean that the federal government cannot regulate a states commerce. When the Commerce Clause has a broad interpretation, intrastate regulations are often included. Commerce is more than just buying or selling; it is intercoursing, which according to this case does include such stipulations as navigation. Interpreting commerce in a broad sense has thus established what is known as a Federal police power. Police powers refer to or identify the inherent authority of the state government to regulate individually liberty, freedom for health and welfare and safety. The Federal government does not have police power, but it can be seen as evidence in this case how the Federal

The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Worcester stating that the laws of Georgia have no jurisdiction in the Cherokee’s Territory. The court also ruled that the law passed by Georgia violated treaties between the United States and the Cherokee Nation and also that the law violated the 14th

BIS did not breach duty of care because according to "N.Y. GOB. LAW 18-105: NY Code -Section 18-105: Duties of skiers"  10-11, each skier shall have the duty not to willfully stop on any slope or trail where such stopping is likely to cause a collision with other skiers or vehicles and to yield to other skiers when entering a trail or starting downhill. Craig neglected his duty to both.

In Balla v. Gambro, Inc., 145 Ill. 2d 492 (Ill. 1991), the Illinois Supreme Court

It questioned whether the state of Georgia was subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government? The details involved the state of Georgia purchasing supplies from a South Carolina businessman. Once Georgia got the supplies Georgia did not pay up. Chisholm sued Georgia regarding a supposed debt. But Georgia disagreed that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case. The state of Georgia says that the federal government does not sovereignty over state governments. The U.S. Supreme court had to decide whether they will have jurisdiction over the state of Georgia. The question is whether or not the people of the United States form a nation. The Court agreed that Georgia was subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court. Just like a common man has to obey laws, so does a state. I agree that everything a person has to do and should do, like repay a loan, a state has to and should do

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the decision of the appellate court reversing the grant of summary judgment to the landowner. The court held the prior burglaries to be substantially similar to Walker’s burglary. The court pointed out that even though the burglaries were committed when the apartments were vacant it is still reasonable to anticipate that an unauthorized entry might occur while an apartment was occupied and could result in personal harm to a tenant. The jury concluded that Sturbridge Partners failed to exercise ordinary care to safeguard their tenants against the foreseeable risk posed by the prior burglaries.

Gibbons vs. Ogden (1824), the question asked was: Did the state of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to Congress, namely, the regulation of interstate commerce? A New York state law gave people the right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. Thomas Gibbons, a steamboat owner, did business between New York and New Jersey under a federal coastal license and challenged the monopoly license granted by New York to Aaron Ogden. New York courts consistently upheld the state monopoly. The unanimous court ruled that the New Yorks licensing requirement for out of state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coastal trade. The New York law was invalid by virtue of the supremacy clause. Marshall developed a clear definition of the work commerce which included navigation on interstate waterways. Marshall gave meaning to the phrase “among several states” in the commerce clause, he concluded that the regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for the purpose of conducting was a power reserved to and exercised by

Interstate compacts can be created for a multitude of reasons as necessary to correct shared problems, promote a common agenda or produce collective goods between the involved states (Nicholson-Crotty, Woods, Bowman, & Karch, 2014). One issue that affects multiple states is the allocation of interstate waters. In the court case of Kansas v. Nebraska, the issue of interstate water allocation and its related interstate compact functionality was at issue.

Furthermore, in Standard Oil Co., the Supreme Court stated that “The term "monopoly,"… as used in the Sherman Act was intended to cover such monopolies or attempts to monopolize as were known to exist in this country; those which were defined as illegal at common law by the States, when applied to intrastate commerce.” The Supreme Court went on to further state that “the principles of the common law applied to interstate as well as to intrastate commerce.”

I’d like to start this speech today with a question. How many people have been in a vehicle whether being the driver or a passenger and drove by a stationary emergency vehicle sitting alongside the road? I can attest to driving by as well as being on the side of the road. My father, my grandfather, my uncle, and some of my ideals are alongside the road every single day. My grandfather owns a towing company, I have spent my entire life around emergency responders. So, the Move Over Slow Down Law hits very close to home. An article published by Matt Gray states, “Five firefighters per year, and one law enforcement officer per month are killed due to the violation of the Move Over Law. One tow truck driver is killed every six days due to Move Over violations,” (Gray). I am here today to persuade the audience to move over and slow down for emergency responders alongside the road as well as stranded motorists. People need to be aware of the Move Over Slow Down Law.

outlawed the practice for all federal employees, and the Department of Highway Safety believes it should be forbidden in every state across the country.

Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 127 (UK Court of Appeal), Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968) 120 CLR 516 (High Court)

Contracts, business, and laws are three simple little words, but when put together they have a substantial impact on our everyday lives. Below we will discuss three case studies. The first case is between Chris, Matt, and Ian vs. Donald Margolin, who was injured when he used an aftershave lotion that he bought off the internet called Funny Face. The second case is between Sam, his landlord, and a national chain store. Sam is being accused of conducting business from his apartment and going back on a verbal promise. In the last case is two lifelong friends who decided to join in a partnership and open up a sporting goods shop. Therefore, before the appropriate court can proceed with the first case, the court should take into several considerations around the rules of jurisdiction, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and whether or not corporation/or corporate offices can be held for the criminal or potential act. In the second case before the court can rule the court should determine the various elements of a valid contract, if a quasi-contract exists, a promissory estoppel, and the rights an obligation of a tenant would prevail on Sam 's claims. Finally, in the third case between Jeb and Josh, they should determine the type of business entity that will overall protect their business and personal needs.