Slaughterhouse Cases - The Slaughterhouse Monopoly, Monopoly As "servitude", Equal Protection, Further Readings
appellants court decision orleans
Appellants
Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans; The Livestock Dealers' and Butchers' Association of New Orleans
Appellees
The Crescent City Live Stock Landing and Slaughter House Company; State of Louisiana
Appellants' Claim
That the state's establishment of a monopoly in stock slaughtering violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Chief Lawyers for Appellants
John Campbell, J. Q. A. Fellows
Chief Lawyer for Appellees
T. J. Durant
Justices for the Court
Salmon Portland Chase, Nathan Clifford, David Davis, Ward Hunt, Samuel Freeman Miller (writing for the Court), William Strong
Justices Dissenting
Joseph P. Bradley, Stephen Johnson Field, Noah Haynes Swayne
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
14 April 1873
Decision
The state of Louisiana was within its regular police powers to protect public health to establish a monopoly slaughterhouse down river from New Orleans.
Significance
Although the court ruled that the state-established slaughterhouse monopoly was legal, it ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, originally intended to protect the civil rights of freed slaves, also protected other citizens against hostile action by state governments. However,the decision favored the state's own interpretation of when such rights would be violated.
Related Cases
- Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884).
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law Minneapolis, Minnesota: West Publishing, 1998.
User Comments
11 months ago
I need information re: whether steamboats carried hogs to the slaughterhouse in New Orleans (Arabi) from northeast Louisiana or the Catahoula country. I will appreciate any help I can get.
Walter
over 3 years ago
Thank you very much for providing this material in an understanding text. I'm studying to be a paralegal and we are beginnning to brief cases and this was one of them. I had a little problem understanding the issues at hand without this website's help. I now have a very much more concise understanding of this case. Thank you once again. I will be visiting this page again no doubt it about it. Keep up the good work. Thank you.