United States Supreme Court case
Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co.
Supreme Court of the United States Full case name Thomas Willson and Others, Plaintiffs in Error v. The Black Bird Creek Marsh Company, Defendants Citations 27 U.S. 245 (more 2 Pet. 245; 7 L. Ed. 412
As long as Congress has not exercised its power over commerce in a certain area, a state may regulate that area as long as such regulations do not conflict with the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution .
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
Bushrod Washington · William Johnson Gabriel Duvall · Joseph Story Smith Thompson
Majority Marshall, joined by unanimous Commerce Clause
Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. [1] United States Supreme Court case regarding the definition of the Commerce Clause in Article 1 sec. 8, cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution .
Background [ ] Willson, the owner of a sloop who was licensed under federal , the Sally, broke through a dam that blocked his passage which was built by the Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. and had been authorized to do so by Delaware law. The company brought a case against Willson, claiming Delaware authorized the building of the dam on the Blackbird Creek through a law which was passed under the police power of the state in order to clean up a health hazard and there was no legislation by Congress dealing with the same subject matter. Willson claimed that the law authorizing the building of the dam was a violation of the commerce clause. He believed he had a constitutional right to navigating coastal streams and Delaware's actions were motivated by private profits.
Opinion [ ] Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed the lower court's decision, that because no federal law dealt specifically with the situation, and the state law did not violate Congress' Dormant Commerce Clause power, the state law was valid. He did note, however, that the dam might interfere with interstate commerce.[2]
See also [ ] References [ ]
^ Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. , 27 U.S. (2 Pet. ) 245 (1829).^ Gillman, Graber, and Whittington 2013, p. 223.
Bibliography [ ] Jean Edward Smith , John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation , New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.Gillman, Howard, Graber, Mark, and Keith Whittington, American Constitutionalism , New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. External links [ ]
U.S. Supreme Court Article I case law
Enumeration Clause of Section II
Utah v. Evans Department of Commerce v. New York Trump v. New York
Qualifications Clauses of Sections II and III
Powell v. McCormack U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
Elections Clause of Section IV
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Origination Clause of Section VII
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Pocket Veto Case (1929)Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha Clinton v. City of New York
Hylton v. United States Collector v. Day Springer v. United States Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. United States v. Butler Helvering v. Davis South Dakota v. Dole National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Copyright Clause of Section VIII
Copyright Act of 1790 Patent Act of 1793
Tyler v. Tuel Evans v. Eaton Evans v. Eaton Evans v. Hettich Patent infringement case lawPatentability case lawCopyright Act of 1831 Copyright Act of 1870 Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 International Copyright Act of 1891 Copyright Act of 1909 Patent misuse case law
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Co. Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co. Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 Lanham Act
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. Matal v. Tam Iancu v. Brunetti Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. Copyright Act of 1976
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid Stewart v. Abend Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. New York Times Co. v. Tasini Eldred v. Ashcroft MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick Golan v. Holder Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. Allen v. Cooper Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. Other copyright cases Other patent cases
Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde United States v. General Electric Co. United States v. Univis Lens Co. Altvater v. Freeman Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther Brulotte v. Thys Co. Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. Graham v. John Deere Co. United States v. Adams Brenner v. Manson Lear, Inc. v. Adkins Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. Gottschalk v. Benson United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. Dann v. Johnston Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. Parker v. Flook Diamond v. Chakrabarty Diamond v. Diehr Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. Dickinson v. Zurko Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. Bilski v. Kappos Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Kappos v. Hyatt Bowman v. Monsanto Co. Gunn v. Minton Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. FTC v. Actavis, Inc. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. Other trademark cases
Necessary and Proper Clause of Section VIII
Habeas corpus Suspension ClauseSection IX
Ex parte Bollman Ex parte Merryman Ex parte Endo Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr Boumediene v. Bush Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX
Contract Clause of Section X
Import-Export Clause of Section X
Compact Clause of Section X
Works related to Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Company at Wikisource
