Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Allen v. Pullman's Palace Car Company.

• 1890 • 139 U.S. 658 • Fuller Court
In the 1890 case of Allen v. Pullman's Palace Car Company, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pullman's Palace Car Company, a railroad car manufacturing company that also operated sleeping cars on many railroads. The plaintiff, Mr. Allen, had purchased tickets for himself and his wife to travel from Washington D.C., to Hot Springs Arkansas via Cincinnati and Louisville but was denied service due to racial discrimination policies enforced by the defendant at that time period (the late 19th...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1890
Docket: 1381
139 U.S. 658
11 S. Ct. 682
35 L. Ed. 303
1891 U.S. LEXIS 2421
Argued: Mar 16, 1891

Allen v. Pullman's Palace Car Company.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1890 case of Allen v. Pullman's Palace Car Company, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pullman's Palace Car Company, a railroad car manufacturing company that also operated sleeping cars on many railroads. The plaintiff, Mr. Allen, had purchased tickets for himself and his wife to travel from Washington D.C., to Hot Springs Arkansas via Cincinnati and Louisville but was denied service due to racial discrimination policies enforced by the defendant at that time period (the late 19th century). He sued for damages based on breach of contract and humiliation suffered as a result of this incident. The court held that since Mr. Allen did not specifically inform or make it known at the time he bought his ticket that he was African American - which would have been relevant information given existing segregation laws - there could be no claim made against Pullman’s Palace Car Co., because they were unaware they were entering into an agreement with someone who fell under these discriminatory practices when selling him the ticket. This ruling reflected societal norms during this era where racial segregation was legally sanctioned; however, such rulings are now considered unconstitutional following landmark civil rights cases like Brown v Board Education.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Allen v. Pullman's Palace Car Company, Justice Bradley argued that the majority had incorrectly interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1875. He contended that while this law did indeed prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations, it was not intended to apply to private contracts or transactions such as those between a railroad company and its passengers. In his view, when an individual purchases a ticket from a railway company, they are entering into a private contract with that business rather than accessing a public accommodation. Therefore, he believed that any alleged acts of racial discrimination by Pullman's Palace Car Company were beyond the scope of federal jurisdiction under this legislation and should instead be addressed at state level if necessary.

Opinion written by Justice MWFuller
Decided: Apr 13, 1891
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms