Analysis of Cases Involving Bill Of Rights

Santa Clara County taxed Southern Pacific Rail Company but Southern Pacific Rail Company Refused to pay the tax claiming that it was wrongly assessed and that they were denied equal protection under law Analysis Santa Clara County lost the case because:

It was established that road was a military route and fences could not be subjected to state taxation and the provisions of the constitution and laws of California imposed unequal burdens to the defendant to the extent of denying it the equal protection of the laws and that section 3664 of the political Code of California was not constitutionally enacted by the legislature and had no force of law. Minority rationale(s)

Claimed that the assessments were correctly done and under the jurisdiction of tax assessors and that it produced documents necessary to recover the unpaid tax. Comments It is important to uphold the rights of corporations and institutions as those of individuals in order to uphold the rule of equal rights. Follow- Up Questions 1. Business speech deals with the rights of individuals in business while political speech details on the privileges of all citizens as a unit. 2.

It is necessary for the general good that closely regulated industries are not given all the Fourth Amendment Bill of rights guarantees because they are dealing in critical goods and from time to time it is required that they are inspected randomly to ensure that they are producing right and safe products. The rights of the business were not protected as his machine rights were infringed upon. 3. I feel the bill of rights of Southern Pacific Rail Company was protected because the case was decided in their favour. Were the tax on fences imposed, they would have been taxed unfairly.

Administrative Agency – Facts Case: Brandal V. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Court: The Supreme Court of the State Of Alaska The Plaintiff: Henry D. Brandal The Defendant: State Of Alaska, Issue Henry Brandal argues that he was wrongly denied limited fishing license to fish in the Chignik purse seine fishery by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, that his income dependence points under the Limited Entry Act was wrongly calculated, and that he was denied justice because the case took a long time to be resolved . Analysis

It was maintained that Henry Brandal does not qualify for a permit. The facts supporting the case included: Henry Brandal was not originally entitled to limited permit because he did not meet the laid down procedures that qualifies one to be awarded limited fishing license and was notified earlier by hearing officers that his application was likely to be denied. This is because he was not holding gear license before 1972 and worked as a crew member not co-owner of the gear license and thus was not covered by the special circumstances exception.

In addition, Brandal was not likely to suffer hardship that an established career fisher would have experienced in 1973 from suddenly being forbidden to fish. The court also noted that the delay of the ruling did not deny him justice. This is because the delay to give ruling on his case was not accompanied by prejudice. It was also pointed out that Brandal gained during the period he was granted interim license that earn him some income even though he was not originally entitled to and consequently he had no reason to complain.