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

Barney v. Baltimore City

• 1867 • 73 U.S. 280 • Chase Court
In the case of Barney v. Baltimore City, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the operation of a ferry service on the Patapsco River was constitutional. The plaintiff, Barney, argued that the ordinance violated his right to operate a ferry service on the river, which he had been doing for many years. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional, as it was a valid exercise of the city's police power. The Court...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 Chase Court
Term: 1867
73 U.S. 280
18 L. Ed. 825
1867 U.S. LEXIS 971
Argued: Dec 18, 1867

Barney v. Baltimore City

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Barney v. Baltimore City, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the operation of a ferry service on the Patapsco River was constitutional. The plaintiff, Barney, argued that the ordinance violated his right to operate a ferry service on the river, which he had been doing for many years. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional, as it was a valid exercise of the city's police power. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the city's authority to regulate the use of its waterways, and that it did not violate Barney's right to operate a ferry service. The Court also noted that the ordinance was not an unreasonable burden on Barney's business, as he could still operate his ferry service on other rivers. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and did not violate Barney's right to operate a ferry service on the Patapsco River.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Barney v. Baltimore City, Chief Justice Chase delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to uphold an ordinance passed by Baltimore City in 1859 which prohibited any person from selling goods or merchandise on Sunday without first obtaining a license. The dissent argued that this ordinance was unconstitutional because it violated both the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as well as Article I Section 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits states from passing laws impairing contracts. Furthermore, Chief Justice Chase asserted that while there may be some public interest in preventing people from engaging in certain activities on Sundays for religious reasons, such interests should not override individual rights protected under these clauses and sections of law. He concluded his argument by stating that if governments are allowed to pass ordinances like this one then they will have too much power over individuals' lives and could potentially lead to tyranny.

Opinion written by Justice SFMiller
Decided: Feb 10, 1868
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