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

Bacon, Doing Business As Wabash Elevator, v. People Of The State Of Illinois

• 1912 • 227 U.S. 504 • White Court
In the case of Bacon, doing business as Wabash Elevator, v. People of the State of Illinois (1912), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Illinois. The dispute arose when Bacon was charged with violating an Illinois state law that prohibited grain elevators from charging more than a certain rate for storing grain. He argued that this law violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of property without due process and denying him equal protection under the laws because it did not...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 White Court
Term: 1912
Docket: 76
227 U.S. 504
33 S. Ct. 299
57 L. Ed. 615
1913 U.S. LEXIS 2325
Argued: Dec 06, 1912

Bacon, Doing Business As Wabash Elevator, v. People Of The State Of Illinois

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Bacon, doing business as Wabash Elevator, v. People of the State of Illinois (1912), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Illinois. The dispute arose when Bacon was charged with violating an Illinois state law that prohibited grain elevators from charging more than a certain rate for storing grain. He argued that this law violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of property without due process and denying him equal protection under the laws because it did not apply to other businesses or commodities. However, the court held that states have broad authority to regulate businesses within their borders if they are affected with a public interest and can set maximum rates for services provided by such businesses without infringing on constitutional rights.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Bacon v. People of the State of Illinois, Justice Holmes argued that there was no constitutional violation in this case. He contended that a state has every right to regulate businesses within its jurisdiction and ensure they operate fairly and justly. The law under scrutiny did not infringe on any rights or privileges granted by the Constitution but rather sought to prevent unjust practices in business operations. Furthermore, he asserted that it is within a state's power to determine what constitutes fair trade practices and enforce such regulations as necessary for public welfare. Therefore, according to him, the judgment against Bacon should have been upheld since his actions were deemed unfair under Illinois' laws.

Opinion written by Justice CEHughes(1)
Decided: Feb 24, 1913
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