To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Hughes v. Oklahoma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hughes v. Oklahoma
Argued January 9, 1979
Decided April 24, 1979
Full case nameWilliam Hughes v. Oklahoma
Citations441 U.S. 322 (more)
99 S. Ct. 1727; 60 L. Ed. 2d 250; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 35
Case history
PriorAppeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Holding
The Congress may enact legislation governing wildlife on federal lands. When conflicting state law exists, the supremacy clause ensures that federal legislation will prevail.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
DissentRehnquist, joined by Burger
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Geer v. Connecticut (1896)

Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court decision, which held that the United States Congress may enact legislation governing wildlife on federal lands.

Background

Oklahoma enacted statutes that prevented any person from selling minnows found within the natural waters of the state of Oklahoma outside of the state of Oklahoma. Oklahoma claimed that the purpose of the statute was for wildlife conservation. The underlying legal controversy arose when William Hughes was convicted of shipping minnows fished from Oklahoma waters out of the state.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court held that the statute violated the Dormant Commerce Clause because it discriminated the flow of interstate commerce without being the least discriminatory alternative. The Court stated that when conflicting state law exists, the supremacy clause ensures that federal legislation will prevail. The Court thereby overruled Geer v. Connecticut (1896), rejecting the earlier case's "19th century legal fiction of state ownership" of wildlife. In the Court's view, this "fiction" had "been eroded to the point of virtual extinction in cases involving regulation of wild animals." With the fall of Geer, the last precedential impediment to the federal government's wildlife management authority was removed.

See also

Further reading

  • Axline, M. D. (1981). "The End of a Wildlife Era: Hughes v. Oklahoma". Oregon Law Review. 60: 413.
  • Hellerstein, Walter (1979). "Hughes v. Oklahoma: The Court, the Commerce Clause, and State Control of Natural Resources". The Supreme Court Review. 1979: 51–93. doi:10.1086/scr.1979.3109566. JSTOR 3109566.
  • Matthews, Olen Paul (1986). "Who Owns Wildlife?". Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14 (4): 459–465. JSTOR 3782288.

External links


This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 02:23
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.