The US Supreme Court found in favor of Gibbons, because the Constitution assigns authority to regulate business between the states to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Interstate Commerce Clause) and specifically prohibits states from charging other states for using their waterways under Article I, Section 9.
The Court's ruling nullified a New York state law and voided the Fulton-Livingston contract that required steamboat owners to buy a license allowing them to operate in New York state waters.
Case Citation:
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
The nominal plaintiff (or petitioner) was Thomas Gibbons, owner of a steamboat company based in Elizabethtown, NJ. The respondent (like a defendant) was Aaron Ogden, owner of a rival steamboat company located in New York City.
The real dispute was between the United States and the state of New York; between Federalism and state sovereignty; and between practices established under the Articles of Confederation and laws enacted under the authority of the US Constitution. The United States, Federalism, and the Constitution won.
Case Citation:
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
The plaintiff (or petitioner) was Thomas Gibbons, owner of a steamboat company based in Elizabethtown, NJ. The respondent (like a defendant) was Aaron Ogden, owner of a rival steamboat company located in New York City.
The real dispute was between the United States and the state of New York; between Federalism and state sovereignty; and between practices established under the Articles of Confederation and laws enacted under the authority of the US Constitution. The United States, Federalism, and the Constitution won.
Case Citation:
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
Gibbons v. Ogden
Gibbons v Ogden
Gibbons v. Ogden was argued before the US Supreme Court on February 5, 1924, and the Court released its decision on March 2, 1824. Gibbons established Congress had sole constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.Case Citation:Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
The Supreme Court used a broad interpretation of the Constitution when reaching its decision in Gibbons v. Ogden,(1824). A broad interpretation creates a precedent that is applicable to many cases, as opposed to a narrow interpretation, which may address only the instant case or a small range of cases.In Gibbons, Chief Justice Marshall held Congress had sole authority to regulate commerce between the states, and asserted the supremacy of federal law over state law when the two are in conflict (per the Article VI Supremacy Clause).Case Citation:Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
Reversed- judgement in favor of Gibbons
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)Plaintiff's Counsel (Gibbons)William WirtDaniel WebsterRespondent's Counsel (Ogden)Thomas Addis EmmetThomas J. Oakley
valla bilemeyecem be abi
pota
pota
pota
Gibbons v. Ogden
The US Supreme Court made a decision in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824). See Related Questions, below, for a discussion of that decision.
the court defined interstate
gibbons v. ogden
The commerce clause
John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during the Gibbons vs Ogden Case. This landmark decision invoked that the power to regulate interstate trade was granted via the constitution.