Tanya Trucker vs. State of Confusion

Tanya Trucker vs. State of Confusion

The state of Confusion has decided to pass a law, which states that all trucks and towing trailers must have the B-type hitch to drive along the state’s highways. The law states that the hitch must be installed or the trucks must go around the state. However, the federal government has not made the same changes on the nation’s highways. Tanya Trucker, the owner of a trucking company in the state of Denial, is filing suit against Confusion for the excess expenses the state is now costing her company. This document will discuss in detail the court system used, whether the statute is constitutional, and whether Ms. Trucker will likely prevail in her suit.

Court Jurisdiction

To determine what court system will handle the case, details are needed concerning how many trucks Ms. Trucker has in her company, the cost of each new hitch, and the cost of down time each driver will incur while waiting installation. If the total cost is less than $75,000, Ms. Trucker is required to use a general jurisdiction court and may do so in the state of Confusion. This particular court system will be the same used for criminal court hearings because the judges over them regularly handle complex commercial lawsuits. Decisions made in this type of case are completed quickly to ensure lower costs upon the companies (Cheeseman, 2010). However, if the total cost to the trucking company is over $75,000 and because it is taking place in two different states, the federal court system may handle the case. This court is an Article III court, derived from Article III of the Constitution (U.S. Courts, 2011). For this document, we will assume that the costs incurred are not over the $75,000 limit.

U.S. Constitution

The statutes that the state of Confusion has created is constitutional. In Article IV, Section One of the Constitution, it states “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings...