Gibbons Vs Ogden Case Analysis

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

Since steamboats can be licensed the same as sailboats, the New York enjoinment that inhibits any vessel from using its waters conflicts with Congressional power and is unconstitutional.

In 1808 the government of New York gave ownership to a steamboat company to operate its boat on the state's waters. Aaron Ogden owned a license under this monopoly to run steamboats between New Jersey and New York. Thomas Gibbons was another steamboat operator who competed with Aaron Gordon on the same route but had a federal coasting license given by Congress. Ogden filed a complaint in the New York court to stop Gibbons from running his boats. Gibbons disagreed arguing that the U.S. constitution gave Congress the power over interstate commission. After losing twice in the New York courts Gibbons went to the Supreme court

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

In the Edwards v. South Carolina case a group of african-american protesters organised a peaceful march to the South Carolina State House and were confronted by a group of police who arrested the protesters for “breach of the peace” after they refused to disperse, and sang patriotic songs. The supreme court decided in favor of the protesters and said that the arrests violated the protesters First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Facts: Gawley was a police officer who worked for Indiana University for several years. She sued the college because she noted sexual harassment by a higher-ranking officer than she was. She also sued because she felt she was part of a hostile work environment and that officers in her department retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the college. Her final argument was that there was spoliation of evidence. The district court found in favor of the employer. The case did not go to trial because the district court granted summary judgment. Summary judgment is used to avoid trials. The decision was made based on two key decisions made by the Supreme Court in other cases and that the university was able to establish an affirmative defense. The university “may assert an affirmative defense that examines the reasonableness of the employer’s and the target’s conduct” (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, p. 167). Gawley then appealed to the United State Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. This case brief will outline the question, holding, reasoning, and significance of this case as it was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Throughout history one can look through cases to find where race played a part tin the conviction and sentencing of a case. However, in the case of Georgia vs. Dixon did race play a part in convicting Dixon? Did the jury know what they were doing? Was the sentencing initial to give a harsher charge? By looking at the facts of the case, legally defining all the charges, and explain the outcome and the issues that surrounded the case one can answer the basis of these questions.

Ogden. In 1807, Robert Fulton invented the steamboat and it was able to be used as a transportation method on rivers. Since a new system of transporting was on the rise two men were quick to obtain a license to cross various bodies of water. One of these men was, Aaron Ogden got a license from the State of New York to travel between New york City and the Jersey Shore. He was a steamboat operator and he would run his steamer between New Jersey and New York City. He bought a franchise from Fulton. Ogden decided to have Thomas Gibbons as a partner in that franchise. Gibbons was also a steamboat operator. Their partnership wouldn’t last long. Gibbons began a dispute towards Ogden because of a license that he had. Ogden had an “exclusive license to operate steam boat ferries between New Jersey and New York City on the Hudson River.” Gibbons began to think that Ogden was challenging him. Gibbons wasn’t able to have access to the Hudson Bay, and therefore he sued Ogden. In other words, this was a problem between the national and state government. Ogden received state permission, and Gibbons received federal permission. So in the end it depended on which one has the highest power. Gibbons and Ogden took the case to the Supreme Court. When it was brought to the Supreme Court’s attention, they cited Article 1 Section 8 which was under the elastic clause. They used the commerce clause which gives Congress the

As a federalist, Marshall utilized the influence over the other individuals of the court. The Supreme Court's settlement, was about Gibbons and the Supremacy Clause to halt states, from lowering the state laws. At last, the Marshall Court repeatedly cohere the nationalist to the federal power. The court's decision benefited the nation as

This paper examines the historical extension of the federal government's power through the application of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). Also, the paper will give the reader a better understanding of the original need for the Commerce Clause, the early interoperation, and the current extended interpretation, which include its impact on the states and citizens. The paper will also give examples of how the Commerce Clause was defined by using Supreme Court Cases.

The court case of Hodgson v Minnesota is over whether it is constitutional to require a minor to notify both parents at least 48 hours before receiving an abortion. The opposing view states that both parents should be notified and that it should be of the discretion pertaining to the minor if they are mature enough.

During the trial of McCulloch v. Maryland, Maryland believed it had the power to tax the national bank, as stated in 1819, based off the “elastic” clause (Document C). However, Chief Justice John Marshall denied Maryland the right to tax the bank and destroyed the ideal of implied powers. This was a major blow to state’s rights as they believed that since they make up the government, they should be able to review actions from the federal government. Upon Marshall’s decision, state’s rights weakened and the federal government grew stronger. Next, an illustration of population density in the year 1820 is shown (Document E).

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?

This became known as the Munn vs. Illinois case, in which the Granger family too action and formed laws to protect them and the common people from the corruption and abuse from the railroad industry. These Granger laws basically stated that the federal government should establish a set passenger and freight rate, and make it illegal to discriminate against anyone. After many debates, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Grangers, giving states the power to regulate railroads that went through their state, protecting the common people from abuse. Along with this, this decision officially set up government regulation over industries, to ensure they are working in the people’s interests. With this new power, the federal government decided that they wanted to have full regulation, and not have the states regulated anything. To ensure this, they nullified the Granger laws and passed the new Interstate Commerce Act in the year 1877. This gave the federal government full regulation of the railroad network throughout the entire nation, and a five person Committee would be responsible for doing

This lowered the tariff gradually over a decade and prevented any armed conflicts.”(.loc.gov) This shows the strength of the federal government over all the states.