Exam (elaborations)
MIE 305_ Exam 2 Cases (1)
- Course
- MIE 305 NCSU Chapters 1-4
- Institution
- MIE 305 NCSU Chapters 1-4
MIE 305_ Exam 2 Cases (1)
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
MIE 305: Exam 2 CasesFree Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB - ANS-Under Sarbanes-Oxley Act, PCAOB officers could be
removed only "for good cause shown"
Marbury v. Madison (1803) - ANS-U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of
judicial review -> Empowers the federal courts with the ability to review actions by Congress and
the executive branch to determine whether those actions violate the Constitution
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - ANS-FACTS OF THE CASE:
Remember: The establishment of the Second National Bank
RULING:
Ruled that the Necessary and Proper Clause was a broad grant of power to Congress, not a
restriction
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - ANS-FACTS OF THE CASE:
*Dealing with navigation on waters. Gibbons and Ogden formed a partnership, but fell apart
when Gibbons operated another steamboat on a NY route belonging to Ogden. Ogden sued
Gibbons in NY state court.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has broad congressional power to
regulate interstate commerce
Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co. v. U.S. - ANS-"Shreveport Rate Cases"
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Texas Railroad Commission mandated that they charge higher rates on freight traveling
between Louisiana and Texas than on freight traveling solely within Texas -> Interstate rates
were found unreasonable and discriminating by ICC
RULING:
Power to regulate interstate commerce was extended to "matters having such a close and
substantial relation to interstate traffic"
Stafford v. Wallace (1922) - ANS-FACTS OF THE CASE:
Congress enacted the "Packers and Stockyards Act" in an attempt to regulate activities of meat
packers that were unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive and encouraged monopolies. Stafford
sued against the enforcement of the Act, but was denied.
RULING:
, The Supreme Court held that the activities controlled by the Act did indeed burden the freedom
of commerce and fell within the regulatory jurisdiction of Congress
Wickard v. Filburn (1942) - ANS-FACTS OF THE CASE:
Farmer Filburn harvested acres of wheat above his allotment under the Agricultural Adjustment
Act of 1938. He was penalized under the Act, but he argued that the extra wheat he had was for
his own personal use (not in marekt), therefore, was not subject to regulation under the
Commerce Clause.
RULINGS:
*Unanimous vote* The Court found that the Commerce clause gives Congress the power to
regulate prices in the industry; "Congress may use its Commerce Power to regulate or prohibit
activities (even within a single state) provided the economic effects of such activities are
substantial."
U.S. v. Lopez (1995) - ANS-*The first case since 1937 in which the Court held that Congress
had exceeded its power to legislate under the Commerce Clause.*
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Lopez (12th grader) carried a concealed weapon into his high school in San Antonio. Lopez was
charged with violating a federal criminal statue (the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990).
RULING:
The Court held that Lopez's possession of the gun wasn't economic activity and its scope was
not sufficiently cabined, and so was outside the broad reach of the Commerce Clause.
NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) - ANS-RULING:
Congress did have the power to regulate labor relations in a manufacturing plant because the
product manufactured by the entity was sold across state lines and any reduction of production
resulting from a labor strike would have a significant impact on interstate commerce
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964) - ANS-FACTS OF THE CASE:
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of public
accommodation if their operations affected commerce. The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta,
Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans. The government sought to enjoin the motel from
discriminating on the basis of race under Title II.
RULING:
*Unanimous decision* The Court held the government could prohibit the motel from
discriminating on the basis of race under the Commerce Clause -> The Commerce Clause
extends the anti-discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hotels that host
travelers from outside the state.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lydiaomutho. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for CA$11.30. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
78834 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now