English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do you also know if this case overturned a previous ruling or later?

2007-03-28 16:00:38 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

2 answers

The state of New York agreed in 1798 to grant Robert Fulton and his backer, Robert R. Livingston, a monopoly on steamboat navigation in state waters if they developed a steamboat capable of traveling 4 miles per hour upstream on the Hudson River. Fulton and Livingston satisfied the condition of the grant in 1807. Subsequently, Aaron Ogden purchased from Fulton and Livingston rights to operate steamboats between New York City and New Jersey. In 1819 Ogden sued Thomas Gibbons, who was operating steamboats in the same waters without the authority of Fulton and Livingston. Ogden won in 1820 in the New York Court of Chancery.

Gibbons appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that he was protected by terms of a federal license to engage in coasting trade. His case was argued before the Supreme Court by Daniel Webster, the leading lawyer of the era, and in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Gibbons. The decision was an important development in interpretation of the commerce clause of the Constitution, and it freed all navigation of monopoly control. The dismantling of navigational monopolies in New York and Louisiana, in particular, facilitated the settlement of the American West.

2007-03-29 05:16:01 · answer #1 · answered by Retired 7 · 0 0

Those primates escaped from the Ogden Zoo in Utah and got as far as I-15, where 2 were killed trying to cross rush- hour traffic. The others were retuned to the zoo, but started showing aberrant behavior. They cowered together in a corner, hardly ate, and flinched at any loud noise. An animal rights activist filed civil suit on their behalf to get them psychological evaluation and therapy for their traumatic episode, then relocation to a more natural environment. The lower courts refused to consider the case, and the Supreme Court was blindsided by the activist's wording of the case, since no mention was made of primates or zoo.

2007-03-28 23:42:26 · answer #2 · answered by ERIC G 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers