Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Munn vs Illinois
Transcript of Munn vs Illinois
This case is about the 14th amendment
It is one of the 6 Granger Cases a term used for the cases involving legislation in the farmers interest
It started when 9 business firms working together were able to fix the prices of storage and handling in Chicago, Illinois grain elevators and warehouses.
Illinois legislature passed a law regulating the prices regulating the charges of the warehouse storage.
When the law was tested by the supreme court the problem was to find a legal basis for regulating the property of grain elevators warehouses and etc. without setting a precedent for regulation of all private property.
Munn vs Illinois (Argued January 14–18, 1876. Decided March 1, 1877)
Rulings of Lower Courts..
This case was taken straight to the supreme court so there were no other rulings.
Arguments of Both Sides
The argument of the petitioner:
The argument that was presented stated that the state had no right to tell him (the owner/ Munn) how much grain can be stored in a storage that is privately owned.
The supreme court decided the case with a 7 votes for Illinois and 2 votes against.
The counter argument:
"1.The responder (Illinois) countered the petitioner's argument with the fact that in the Constitution of the United States which confers upon Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States;"
2.To that part of sect. 9 of the same article which provides that "no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another;" and
3.3. To that part of amendment 14 which ordains that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So the state does have the right to say what is appropriate within the state borders
The dissent of the Munn vs. Illinois case was made by Stephen J. Field and William Strong
William Strong and Stephen Field argued that
as an invasion of private property rights, which he said were protected against state power by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Lauryn Hansard & Grayson Bordelon
The impact of this case was that introduced a short era in which U.S. public utilities were subjected to harsher laws or punishments, and the Illlinois Legislature act of 1871.
Impact of munn vs illinois
harshest punishment of all...