Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1852), was a US Supreme Court case that held that a Pennsylvania law requiring all ships entering or leaving Philadelphia to hire a local pilot did not violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Those who did not comply with the law had been required to pay a fee. Benjamin R. Curtis wrote for the majority, "It is the opinion of a majority of the court that the mere grant to Congress of the power to regulate commerce, did not deprive the States of power to regulate pilots, and that although Congress had legislated on this subject, its legislation manifests an intention, with a single exception, not to regulate this subject, but to leave its regulation to the several states."
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Cooley v. Board of Wardens (en)
- 쿨리 대 워든보드 사건 (ko)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1852), was a US Supreme Court case that held that a Pennsylvania law requiring all ships entering or leaving Philadelphia to hire a local pilot did not violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Those who did not comply with the law had been required to pay a fee. Benjamin R. Curtis wrote for the majority, "It is the opinion of a majority of the court that the mere grant to Congress of the power to regulate commerce, did not deprive the States of power to regulate pilots, and that although Congress had legislated on this subject, its legislation manifests an intention, with a single exception, not to regulate this subject, but to leave its regulation to the several states." (en)
- 쿨리 대 워든보드 사건(Cooley v. Board of Wardens 53 U.S. 299 (1852))은 미국 연방대법원의 유명 판례이다. 미국 연방법원이 통상조항에 관해 최초로 판시한 판례 중 하나이다. 배를 운행하는 쿨리가 펜실베니아 주 필라델피아의 워든보드를 상대로 소송을 건 사건으로 이 사건에서 펜실베니아 필라델피아를 출입하는 모든 배의 선장을 펜실베니아 출신으로 하는 주법이 미국 헌법상 통상조항을 위반하지 않는다고 판시하였다. 대법원 다수의견은 헌법이 의회에 상업을 통제할 권한을 주었다고 하여 각 주들이 배의 선장임명을 통제할 권한을 박탈하였다고 보지 않고 있으며 연방의회가 주의 이 사항을 위임을 했음을 표시하였기 때문이다. (ko)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- Aaron B. Cooley, Plaintiff in Error v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of Distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children, Defendants (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
Dissent
| |
JoinDissent
| |
JoinMajority
| - Taney, Catron, Nelson, Grier (en)
|
LawsApplied
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - Cooley v. Board of Wardens, (en)
|
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
findlaw
| |
fullname
| - Aaron B. Cooley, Plaintiff in Error v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of Distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children, Defendants (en)
|
Holding
| - The Commerce Clause extends to laws related to pilotage. State laws related to commerce powers can be valid if Congress is silent on the matter. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| - Cooley v. Board of Wardens (en)
|
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1852), was a US Supreme Court case that held that a Pennsylvania law requiring all ships entering or leaving Philadelphia to hire a local pilot did not violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Those who did not comply with the law had been required to pay a fee. Benjamin R. Curtis wrote for the majority, "It is the opinion of a majority of the court that the mere grant to Congress of the power to regulate commerce, did not deprive the States of power to regulate pilots, and that although Congress had legislated on this subject, its legislation manifests an intention, with a single exception, not to regulate this subject, but to leave its regulation to the several states." (en)
- 쿨리 대 워든보드 사건(Cooley v. Board of Wardens 53 U.S. 299 (1852))은 미국 연방대법원의 유명 판례이다. 미국 연방법원이 통상조항에 관해 최초로 판시한 판례 중 하나이다. 배를 운행하는 쿨리가 펜실베니아 주 필라델피아의 워든보드를 상대로 소송을 건 사건으로 이 사건에서 펜실베니아 필라델피아를 출입하는 모든 배의 선장을 펜실베니아 출신으로 하는 주법이 미국 헌법상 통상조항을 위반하지 않는다고 판시하였다. 대법원 다수의견은 헌법이 의회에 상업을 통제할 권한을 주었다고 하여 각 주들이 배의 선장임명을 통제할 권한을 박탈하였다고 보지 않고 있으며 연방의회가 주의 이 사항을 위임을 했음을 표시하였기 때문이다. (ko)
|
ArgueDateA
| |
ArgueDateB
| |
Concurrence
| |
NotParticipating
| |
openjurist
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |