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

City Of Leavenworth v. Kinney

1878 • 154 U.S. 642 • Waite Court
In City of Leavenworth v. Kinney, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors within the city limits was constitutional. The ordinance was challenged by a local saloonkeeper, who argued that the ordinance violated his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's...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 Waite Court
Term: 1878
Docket: 744
154 U.S. 642
14 S. Ct. 1198
25 L. Ed. 336
1879 U.S. LEXIS 1375

City Of Leavenworth v. Kinney

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In City of Leavenworth v. Kinney, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors within the city limits was constitutional. The ordinance was challenged by a local saloonkeeper, who argued that the ordinance violated his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and that it did not violate the saloonkeeper's right to due process of law. The Court noted that the ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the city's power to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors, and that it was not an arbitrary or oppressive measure. The Court also held that the ordinance did not violate the saloonkeeper's right to equal protection of the laws, as the ordinance applied equally to all persons within the city limits. The Court concluded that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and that it did not violate the saloonkeeper's constitutional rights.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In City of Leavenworth v. Kinney, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors within two miles of an Indian reservation violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion held that it did not violate equal protection because there was no discrimination against any particular class or group and thus no violation occurred. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while there may have been no intentional discrimination in enacting this law, its effect is to deny certain individuals their right to purchase liquor based solely on their race or ethnicity as members of an Indian tribe living near a reservation. He argued further that such laws are unconstitutional under both state and federal constitutions because they create unequal treatment for people who are similarly situated but treated differently due to their race or ethnicity alone.

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