Perez v. Campbell
| 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, JJ |
| Concur/dissent | Blackmun, joined by Burger, CJ; Harlan, Stewart, JJ |
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 suspendinga 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. and Mrs. Perez, were licensed, uninsured motorist 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 responsiblity laws, withdrew the Perez' licenses, and an the couple filed suit in district court, where their claim was denied, and later denied on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. They appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[1]
Opinion of the Court
Justice Byron White delivered the majority opinion, which held that the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act interefered with the purpose of the Bankruptcy Act § 17, a purpose which included giving those exiting bankrupcy the chance for a "clear field for future effort, unhampered by ... pre-existing debt."[4]
This decision was seen as overruling prior precedent in Keeler v. Department of Public Safety, 269 US 153 (1962) and Reitz v. Mealey, 314 US 33 (1941),[1] the court noting 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."[5]
Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for a four-member opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part, would have upheld Keeler and Reitz, suggesting that the primary purpose of the Arizona law was not bankruptcy, but mororist responsiblity.[6]
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.
- ^ *Court Opinion at Justia
- ^ 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. |