Midterm Study Guide for Business Law Part 2
Wilson V. Lane:
Issue The issue here is whether the extent of the warrant covers the intrusion of the
police accompanied by a thirdparty which contained cameras and reporters or it violates
the people’s 4 Amendment rights in unlawfully breaching their privacy.
Rule The 4 amendment states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches an seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by path or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things
to be seized.”
Analysis The rule here is that there is no doubt that the police officers obeyed the law in
intruding the homes of these individuals to search for the suspect that they believed
committed the thime because they had a sufficient warrant. However, what violates the
individuals 4 amendment rights is the pointless assistance of reporters and cameramen
present as well. These reporters were not assisting in the arrest of the individual. In fact,
they were going to use the information and photos of that incident for their personal need
such as helping their newspapers out. Therefore, if the scope of the search exceeds that
permitted by the terms of validly issued warrant or the character relevant exception from
the warrant requirement, the sthzure is deemed unconstitutional. The plaintiff would
argue that it violated their 4 amendment rights and the defendant would state that the
permit permitted a breach but the permit is falsely presented by the presence of the
ConclusionThe court decided that the breach was unconstitutional and they individuals
successfully sued for the violation of their right to privacy
Granholm V. Heald
Issue Where or not the state’s regulatory scheme that permits in state wineries directly to
ship alcohol to consumers but restricts the ability of out of state wineries to do so violate
the Commerce Clause?
Rule the commerce clause authorizes congress to regulate commerce in order to ensure
that the flow of interstate commerce is free from local restraints imposed by various
states. When congress deems an action of interstate commerce to be in need of
supervision it will enact legislation that must have some real and rational relation to the
subject of regulation.
AnalysisThe commerce clause regulates interstate commerce to prevent discrimination.
One should not have to become a resident to receive equal treatment from businesses. In
Michigan’s case, to further enhance there instate businesses, some wineries only allowed
trade within the state and any commerce out of the state of Michigan was banned. This
extremely violates the Commerce Clause because it puts out of state wineries at an unfair
advantage and the government wants to prevent “trade zones” because they know from
history how it hurt the Early Colonies of America during the Articles of Confederation.
As far New York’s concern, they did not ban it completely, however, they held a small
requirement of partnership with out of state wineries. They had out of state wineries to be
required to establish a distribution operation in NY in order to gain the privilege of direct
shipment but this was extremely difficult because the extra cost in overhead made it expensive. So, both sides had a decent case that they defended but when the government
feels like youre violating the Commerce clause, you have to have a very sufficient reason
to do so.
Conclusion Both states were forced to obey a new regulation that allowed a steady and
fair flow of commerce regardless of the location of the businesses.
Quill V. North Dakota:
Issue Whether the imposition of state taxes on the Quill’s business violates the
commerce clause/ due process clause/ 5 and 15 amendment.
Rule The rule here is dispersed. It uses the commerce clause, which regulates commerce
to ensure that the flow of interstate trade remains free from local restraints imposed, by
various states. Also, North Dakota discusses the due process clause in that although Quill
does not contain a headquarters in North Dakota, their products are physically in their
state and that is sufficient to tax. The due process clause relates to the 5 and 14
amendment that regulates the discrimination of the government.
Analysis North Dakota states that because Quill’s products, the chips, are being traded
and are physically located in their state, they have the right, according to the due process
clause to tax Quill although they do not operate under North Dakota’s grounds. Just the
simple fact of the products being traded through their state is not enough. If that were the
case then it would violate the commerce clause. The Supreme Court used the commerce
clause to explain their justification stating that it would interfere with interstate trade by
containing a local restrain on this business. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of Quill
stating that the due process clause does not bar enforcement of the state’s tax on Quill.
Conclusion Quill was reimbursed for everything and was allowed to continue the
commerce without being taxed unfairly due to the Commerce Clause
Utah Pie Co V. Continental Baking Co:
Issue The issue here is whether or not the decline in prices was meant to harm the Utah
Pie Company and if price discrimination was evident here.
Rule The rule here pertains to price discrimination. The law does not forbid price
competition. However, sellers may no sell like goods to different purchasers at different
prices if the result may be to injure competition to either the sellers’ or the buyers market
unless such discriminations are justified as permitted by the Act.
Analysis In this case, there was some evidence of predatory intent with respect to each
respondent. The reason for the drop in prices was to harm the Utah Company because of
the sharp drop in profit it will receive due to competition. However, the defendant argues
that the court misunderstood this case as a form of the RobinsonPatman Act which
protects competition and competitors. They believed that it was not meant to harm any
company but rather to stimulate competition but, the court disagreed.
Conclusion The prices had to be the same due to both companies selling the same
product and the customers had to choose which one they will prefer.
Motor Vehicles V. State Farm:
Issue The issue here