Charleston v. Jessup was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a municipality could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The case arose when a woman named Mary Jessup was injured after tripping on a defective street in Charleston, South Carolina. The city of Charleston argued that it could not be held liable for the damages caused by the defective street because it was not responsible for the condition of the street. The Supreme Court disagreed with the city of Charleston and held that a municipality could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The Court reasoned that a municipality had a duty to maintain its streets in a safe condition and that it could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The Court also held that the city of Charleston was liable for the damages caused by the defective street because it had failed to maintain the street in a safe condition. The decision in Charleston v. Jessup established that a municipality could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to establish the principle that a municipality has a duty to maintain its streets in a safe condition.

In the case of Charleston v. Jessup, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited any person from selling or offering for sale merchandise on Sunday violated the Constitution's protection of religious freedom. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this right because it applied equally to all persons regardless of their religion and thus did not single out any particular faith for special treatment. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that while the law may have been neutral in its application, its purpose was still to restrict certain activities based solely on religious beliefs which he believed ran contrary to constitutional protections against such discrimination. He further argued that even if there were some secular reasons behind enacting such an ordinance, they could be accomplished without infringing upon people’s rights by simply allowing those who wished to engage in commerce on Sundays due to their faith-based convictions do so without penalty or interference from government authorities.