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

Booth v. Illinois

• 1901 • 184 U.S. 425 • Fuller Court
Booth v. Illinois was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1901 that dealt with the issue of whether states could regulate prices for grain storage facilities, known as grain elevators. The state of Illinois had passed a law setting maximum rates these facilities could charge farmers to store their grain, arguing it was necessary to prevent monopolistic practices and protect public interest. However, Booth, who owned one such facility, challenged this law claiming it violated his Fourteenth Amendment...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: 1901
Docket: 201
184 U.S. 425
22 S. Ct. 425
46 L. Ed. 623
1902 U.S. LEXIS 2282
Argued: Nov 06, 1901

Booth v. Illinois

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Booth v. Illinois was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1901 that dealt with the issue of whether states could regulate prices for grain storage facilities, known as grain elevators. The state of Illinois had passed a law setting maximum rates these facilities could charge farmers to store their grain, arguing it was necessary to prevent monopolistic practices and protect public interest. However, Booth, who owned one such facility, challenged this law claiming it violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of property without due process of law. The Supreme Court ruled against Booth and upheld the constitutionality of the Illinois regulation on grounds that businesses serving a public function or operating in areas where competition is limited can be subject to price controls set by government authorities without violating constitutional protections against deprivation of property. This decision reaffirmed previous rulings establishing states' power to regulate private industries when doing so serves the public good.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Booth v. Illinois, it was argued that the law in question, which regulated grain elevator rates within the state of Illinois, did not violate any constitutional rights and should be upheld. The justice contended that states have a right to regulate businesses operating within their borders when they serve a public interest or function as part of an important industry. He believed this regulation was necessary to prevent monopolistic practices and protect consumers from unfair pricing strategies by these companies. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes interstate commerce; while acknowledging that grain stored in elevators often ends up being shipped across state lines, he maintained that doesn't automatically make all aspects related to its storage subject to federal jurisdiction under Commerce Clause. Instead, he viewed such activities as primarily local matters falling under states' police powers rather than federal control.

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(1)
Decided: Mar 03, 1902
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