Introduction
The State of Confusion has decided to enact a ruling aiming at restricting the usage of any type of hitch for the trucks. The enactment has directed all the trailers and towering trucks to use a B-type truck hitch. As evident in the case, only one manufacturer situated at the Confusion State possesses the prowess to design, as well as implement the hitch with the indicated specifications. However, the federal government has not undertaken an initiative of declaring the expected type of hitch to mount on vehicles (Cross, 2009). The State of Confusion has demanded that, for a vehicle to drive freely across the State, it would be mandatory to have the new hitch installed. As a result, Tanya has opted to file a suit aimed at changing the above act.
The appropriate court
The first part of the assignment requires the identification of the court to perform a command over Tanya’s suit. As depicted in several sources, the “Federal District Court” (FDC) is liable to perform jurisdiction over her suit. The sole aim behind obliging this branch of the court to hold such an obligation is because of the experience it possesses similar cases. Current research conducted in the same field has shown it as a body that has been highly involved in solving some interstate commerce queries. In addition to its power to intervene over interstate commerce, the federal district court has the authority to rule on grievances allied to citizenship (Cross, 2009). The regulation of interstate commerce normally a responsibility of the federal government is an additional reason for allowing the FDC to accomplish the control over the suit presented in this case. Interstate commerce plays a critical part in ensuring that businesses run devoid of solvable challenges. Therefore, it is evident that the new act would result in a myriad of difficulties for a number of businesspeople such as Tanya. Therefore, the interstate commerce body will need to intervene in an effort to offer a sustainable solution.
The constitutionality of the statute
As depicted in a number of sources, Tanya’s lawsuit statute fails to indicate its constitutionality in it. As depicted by the US constitution, the statute ought not to violate an individual’s rights. Clearly, it is indicative that the confusion’s act is unconstitutional since it fails to abide by the rules of the interstate commerce law. For instance, the dormant commerce clause, normally applied in the confusion state in controlling the hitches to use in the trucks, is unconstitutional (Vile, 2003). The only branch of law responsible for the formulation of policies governing interstate commerce is the high Court.
In this discussion, it is palpable that dormant commerce has been applied, as the government has not engaged itself in the process of normalizing hitches used in trucks across the confusing state. Besides, the antitrust violation presented in this case is unconstitutional. The fact that only a single entity manufactures the hitches is unconstitutional. The constitution of the State demands that in an instance, there ought to be a number of entities manufacturing the product to use thus increasing people’s trust. The constitution discourages monopolists. The key reason behind it is because of a condensed competition thus no room for healthy competition, which is normally basic in the provision of quality services (Vile, 2003).
Provisions of the US constitution
The tenth amendment of the US constitution highlights some special powers necessary when performing intra-state commercial activities. Therefore, within this charter, the commerce clause presents numerous commands essential in the determination of the validity of the statute. Perhaps, the same clause confers congress with the administrative supremacy to control the way in which the state performs its business activities. After carefully scrutinizing the confusion statute, it is notable that, it violates some of the provisions of the commerce clause. Article 1, section 8, and clause 3 of the clause would contribute ardently towards determining the validity of the statute.
Tanya’s likelihood to win
As it is evident from the provisions of the commerce clause, Tanya is likely to win against the Confusion. The undertakings of the State of Confusion fail to abide by the interstate commerce law. For instance, the State has failed to constitutionally, indicate the standard hitches to fit all trucks. Moreover, the issue of monopoly is devoid of constitutional support thus the judge would examine these factors, and Tanya would emerge the winner.
Stages of the lawsuit
The main purpose of conducting a civil lawsuit is in an effort to resolve a dispute between two entities in a court of law. This category of a suit is for issues allied to businesses, families, as well as contracts. The literature has revealed that criminal law does not fall under this class of a lawsuit. Therefore, the lawsuit follows a number of stages, which need to be accomplished in a sequential array. The foremost stage is the pleading, which entails the presentation of the claims. In this scenario, the claimant requests judicial intervention, in order to commence the course of the resolution (Cross, 2009). Concurrently, the provision of information on issues of interest is a crucial undertaking during this stage. The presentation of facts on the issue is also necessary at this stage. This is a clear indication that the complainant ought to possess adequate information concerning the dispute. What follows is the notification of the defendant on what is taking place. The court informs them about the courting day, thus preparing to bring their witnesses. Therefore, Tanya ought to follow the same procedure for a positive outcome in her claims.
The second stage of the lawsuit is the trial stage, whereby the presiding judge in discriminatory listens to the woes of both parties. It is at this stage that he seeks evidence, and illuminates the issue through the witnesses’ interrogation. It is after examining the presented facts and applying some legal conventions that the judge provides his judgment. The appeal stage follows the trial, and it is a voluntary stage altogether. The appellant fills a different form providing reasons showing why the judgment in the previous stage demands nullification. At this stage, there is inadequacy for the provision of additional evidence. The final stage is enforcement (Cross, 2009). During this stage, the US Supreme Court implements its judgment. In case the claimant emerges as the winner, the court directs the defendant to provide monetary compensation to cater for the time, and the effort employed. However, in case the defendant emerges innocent, the claimant settles all the costs incurred during the court’s proceedings.
Conclusion
In summary, many States around the globe participate in activities, which are unlawful, after their judgment. The case of Tanya and the Confusion State is among the many examples of instances depicting such occurrences. It is also certain that the Confusion statute is unconstitutional due to a number of reasons. For example, the monopolist nature of the manufacturing company limits competition, normally a constitutional requirement. It is notable that the judgment on any case presented in a court has to pass numerous stages.
References
Cross, J. (2009). Civil procedure: keyed to yeazell, seventh edition. New York, NYAspen Publishers Online.
Vile, J. (2003). Encyclopedia of constitutional amendments, proposed amendments, and amending issues. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.