Perez v. Campbell: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
m http→https for Google Books and Google News using AWB |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
|LawsApplied=[[Supremacy Clause|U.S. Const. art. VI]] |
|LawsApplied=[[Supremacy Clause|U.S. Const. art. VI]] |
||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''Perez v. Campbell''''', [[Case citation|402 U.S. 637]] (1971), was a case in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] held that Arizona's law suspending a driver's license was unconstitutional due to its conflict with the federal Bankruptcy Act under the [[Supremacy Clause]] of the Constitution.<ref name=ABA>{{cite news|url= |
'''''Perez v. Campbell''''', [[Case citation|402 U.S. 637]] (1971), was a case in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] held that Arizona's law suspending a driver's license was unconstitutional due to its conflict with the federal Bankruptcy Act under the [[Supremacy Clause]] of the Constitution.<ref name=ABA>{{cite news|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UMzG_rnhw_AC&pg=PA810&dq=Perez+v.+Campbell,&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gaLtUJ_TBorB2wWCt4GABA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=Perez%20v.%20Campbell%2C&f=false|title=Supreme Court Report: Bankruptcy Act Bars Motorist Responsibility Act|last=Young|first=Rowland L.|date=August 1971|work=ABA Journal|page=810|accessdate=9 January 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|year=1971|journal=Journal - State Bar of California|publisher=State Bar of California|volume=46|page=641|title=(title unclear)|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K2w8AQAAIAAJ&q=perez+motor+responsibility+arizona&dq=perez+motor+responsibility+arizona&hl=en&sa=X&ei=S63tULeoJOa42QWeoIG4DQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw}}</ref> |
||
== Background == |
== Background == |
||
The [[plaintiff]]s, Mr. Adolfo and Mrs. Emma Perez, were licensed uninsured motorists in the state of Arizona. Insurance was not required under Arizona law.<ref>{{cite book|title=Arizona Law Review|url= |
The [[plaintiff]]s, Mr. Adolfo and Mrs. Emma Perez, were licensed uninsured motorists in the state of Arizona. Insurance was not required under Arizona law.<ref>{{cite book|title=Arizona Law Review|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XegxAAAAIAAJ|year=1971|publisher=College of Law of the University of Arizona.|page=749}}</ref> Mr. Perez was involved in a traffic accident and, unable to pay the associated costs, soon filed for bankruptcy. Arizona, under its financial responsibility laws, withdrew the Perez' licenses, and the couple filed suit in district court, where their claim was denied. The Perez family's appeal to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] was denied, and they subsequently appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted [[certiorari]].<ref name=ABA/> |
||
== Opinion of the Court == |
== Opinion of the Court == |
||
[[Byron White|Justice White]] delivered the five-justice majority opinion, which held that the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act interfered with the purpose of the Bankruptcy Act § 17, a purpose which included giving those exiting bankruptcy the chance for a "clear field for future effort, unhampered by ... pre-existing debt."<ref name="Navarra2011">{{cite book|last=Navarra|first=Albert|title=The Elements of Constitutional Law: A Guide to America's Most Timeless and Powerful Document|url= |
[[Byron White|Justice White]] delivered the five-justice majority opinion, which held that the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act interfered with the purpose of the Bankruptcy Act § 17, a purpose which included giving those exiting bankruptcy the chance for a "clear field for future effort, unhampered by ... pre-existing debt."<ref name="Navarra2011">{{cite book|last=Navarra|first=Albert|title=The Elements of Constitutional Law: A Guide to America's Most Timeless and Powerful Document|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fVSv3z9qCpUC&pg=PT86|accessdate=9 January 2013|date=2011-01-01|publisher=Law Book Press LLC|isbn=9780984478606|pages=86–}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30711FD3D5A1A7493C0A9178DD85F458785F9|title=A Summary of Supreme Court Actions|date=June 2, 1971|work=The New York Times|page=18|accessdate=9 January 2013}}</ref> |
||
This decision overruled precedent in ''[[Keeler v. Department of Public Safety]]'', 269 US 153 (1962) and ''[[Reitz v. Mealey]]'', 314 US 33 (1941),<ref name=ABA/> stating that those rulings "have no authoritative effect to the extent they are inconsistent with the controlling principle that state legislation that frustrates the full effectiveness of federal law is invalidated by the Supremacy Clause.",<ref name=Decision>*[http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/402/637 Court Opinion at Justia]</ref> and was seen as reinforcing "the Hines test", the rule specified for identifying Supremacy Clause violations in ''[[Hines v. Davidowitz]]'' (1941).<ref>{{cite journal|last=Bratton, Jr.|first=William W.|date=April 1975|title=The Preemption Doctrine: Shifting Perspectives on Federalism and the Burger Court|journal=Columbia Law Review|publisher=75|issue=3|page=638|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1121775?seq=16&Search=yes&searchText=%22perez+v.+campbell%22&list=show&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3D%2522perez%2Bv.%2Bcampbell%2522%26fromHomePage%3Dtrue%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26fc%3Doff&prevSearch=&item=4&ttl=68&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null}}</ref> |
This decision overruled precedent in ''[[Keeler v. Department of Public Safety]]'', 269 US 153 (1962) and ''[[Reitz v. Mealey]]'', 314 US 33 (1941),<ref name=ABA/> stating that those rulings "have no authoritative effect to the extent they are inconsistent with the controlling principle that state legislation that frustrates the full effectiveness of federal law is invalidated by the Supremacy Clause.",<ref name=Decision>*[http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/402/637 Court Opinion at Justia]</ref> and was seen as reinforcing "the Hines test", the rule specified for identifying Supremacy Clause violations in ''[[Hines v. Davidowitz]]'' (1941).<ref>{{cite journal|last=Bratton, Jr.|first=William W.|date=April 1975|title=The Preemption Doctrine: Shifting Perspectives on Federalism and the Burger Court|journal=Columbia Law Review|publisher=75|issue=3|page=638|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1121775?seq=16&Search=yes&searchText=%22perez+v.+campbell%22&list=show&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3D%2522perez%2Bv.%2Bcampbell%2522%26fromHomePage%3Dtrue%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26fc%3Doff&prevSearch=&item=4&ttl=68&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null}}</ref> |
||
[[Harry Blackmun|Justice Blackmun]], writing for a four-member minority, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have upheld ''Keeler'' and ''Reitz'', suggesting that the primary purpose of the Arizona law was not bankruptcy, but motorist responsibility.<ref name="States2004">{{cite book|last=States|first=United|title=The Constitution Of The United States Of America: Analysis and Interpretation; Analysis Of Cases Decided By the Supreme Court Of the United States To June 28, 2002|url= |
[[Harry Blackmun|Justice Blackmun]], writing for a four-member minority, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have upheld ''Keeler'' and ''Reitz'', suggesting that the primary purpose of the Arizona law was not bankruptcy, but motorist responsibility.<ref name="States2004">{{cite book|last=States|first=United|title=The Constitution Of The United States Of America: Analysis and Interpretation; Analysis Of Cases Decided By the Supreme Court Of the United States To June 28, 2002|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bJjxj5gLRaEC&pg=PA304|accessdate=9 January 2013|year=2004|publisher=Government Printing Office|isbn=9780160723797|pages=304–}}</ref> |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 06:52, 23 October 2016
| Perez v. Campbell | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 19, 1971 Decided June 1, 1971 | |
| Full case name | Perez v. Campbell |
| Citations | 402 U.S. 637 (more) 29 L. ed. 2d, 91 S. Ct. 1704, 39 Law Week 4618 |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan, Marshall |
| Concur/dissent | Blackmun, joined by Burger, Harlan, Stewart |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. VI | |
Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637 (1971), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Arizona's law suspending a driver's license was unconstitutional due to its conflict with the federal Bankruptcy Act under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.[1][2]
Background
The plaintiffs, Mr. Adolfo and Mrs. Emma Perez, were licensed uninsured motorists in the state of Arizona. Insurance was not required under Arizona law.[3] Mr. Perez was involved in a traffic accident and, unable to pay the associated costs, soon filed for bankruptcy. Arizona, under its financial responsibility laws, withdrew the Perez' licenses, and the couple filed suit in district court, where their claim was denied. The Perez family's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was denied, and they subsequently appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.[1]
Opinion of the Court
Justice White delivered the five-justice majority opinion, which held that the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act interfered with the purpose of the Bankruptcy Act § 17, a purpose which included giving those exiting bankruptcy the chance for a "clear field for future effort, unhampered by ... pre-existing debt."[4][5]
This decision overruled precedent in Keeler v. Department of Public Safety, 269 US 153 (1962) and Reitz v. Mealey, 314 US 33 (1941),[1] stating that those rulings "have no authoritative effect to the extent they are inconsistent with the controlling principle that state legislation that frustrates the full effectiveness of federal law is invalidated by the Supremacy Clause.",[6] and was seen as reinforcing "the Hines test", the rule specified for identifying Supremacy Clause violations in Hines v. Davidowitz (1941).[7]
Justice Blackmun, writing for a four-member minority, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have upheld Keeler and Reitz, suggesting that the primary purpose of the Arizona law was not bankruptcy, but motorist responsibility.[8]
References
- ^ a b c Young, Rowland L. (August 1971). "Supreme Court Report: Bankruptcy Act Bars Motorist Responsibility Act". ABA Journal. p. 810. Retrieved 9 January 2013.
- ^ "(title unclear)". Journal - State Bar of California. 46. State Bar of California: 641. 1971.
- ^ Arizona Law Review. College of Law of the University of Arizona. 1971. p. 749.
- ^ "A Summary of Supreme Court Actions". The New York Times. June 2, 1971. p. 18. Retrieved 9 January 2013.
- ^ *Court Opinion at Justia
- ^ Bratton, Jr., William W. (April 1975). "The Preemption Doctrine: Shifting Perspectives on Federalism and the Burger Court". Columbia Law Review (3). 75: 638.
- ^ States, United (2004). The Constitution Of The United States Of America: Analysis and Interpretation; Analysis Of Cases Decided By the Supreme Court Of the United States To June 28, 2002. Government Printing Office. pp. 304–. ISBN 9780160723797. Retrieved 9 January 2013.
External links
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |