Corfield v. Coryell: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "''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 oyst...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|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. | |||
|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? | |||
|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 | |||
* Protection by the government. | *Right to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject to police power | ||
* Right to acquire and possess property | }} | ||
* Right to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject to police power | |||
Latest revision as of 03:40, July 14, 2023
| Corfield v. Coryell | |
| Court | |
|---|---|
| Citation | 6 Fed. Cas. 546, (E.D. Pa. 1823) |
| Date decided | |
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 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
