About: Cooley v. Board of Wardens     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : umbel-rc:Event, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FCooley_v._Board_of_Wardens

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."

AttributesValues
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
  • McLean (en)
JoinDissent
  • Wayne (en)
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
  • Curtis (en)
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
  • Daniel (en)
NotParticipating
  • McKinley (en)
openjurist
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 60 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software