Editing Corfield v. Coryell

''Corfield v. Coryell'', 6 Fed. Cas. 546, (E.D. Pa. 1823)

'''Facts''': A N.J. statute forbade anyone not "an actual inhabitant or resident" of the state to gather clams and oysters from the state's waters.

'''Issue''': Is the N.J. statute a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause and did the law regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause?

'''Holding''': No, the N.J. state law was permissible. The privileges that must be preserved are those that are fundamental; the fish within the state's waters were the common property of the state's citizens and it would be going too far to give equal right to non-residents under the privileges and immunities clause.

'''Comments''': Fundamental privileges include:
* Protection by the government.
* Right to acquire and possess property
* Right to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject to police power
[[Category:Cases:Constitutional Law]]
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Infobox Case Brief
+''Corfield v. Coryell'', 6 Fed. Cas. 546, (E.D. Pa. 1823)
-|citation=6 Fed. Cas. 546, (E.D. Pa. 1823)
-|subject=Constitutional Law
+'''Facts''': A N.J. statute forbade anyone not "an actual inhabitant or resident" of the state to gather clams and oysters from the state's waters.
-|facts=A N.J. statute forbade anyone not "an actual inhabitant or resident" of the state to gather clams and oysters from the state's waters.
-|issues=Is the N.J. statute a violation of the [[Constitution_of_the_United_States#Section_2:_.28Comity_Clause.29|Privileges and Immunities Clause]] and did the law regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause?
+'''Issue''': Is the N.J. statute a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause and did the law regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause?
-|holding=No, the N.J. state law was permissible. The privileges that must be preserved are those that are fundamental; the fish within the state's waters were the common property of the state's citizens and it would be going too far to give equal right to non-residents under the privileges and immunities clause.
-|comments=Fundamental privileges include:
+'''Holding''': No, the N.J. state law was permissible. The privileges that must be preserved are those that are fundamental; the fish within the state's waters were the common property of the state's citizens and it would be going too far to give equal right to non-residents under the privileges and immunities clause.
-*Protection by the government.
-*Right to acquire and possess property
+'''Comments''': Fundamental privileges include:
-*Right to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject to police power
+* Protection by the government.
-}}
+* Right to acquire and possess property
+* Right to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject to police power
+[[Category:Cases:Constitutional Law]]