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

Coryell Et Al. v. Phipps Et Al.

• 1942 • 317 U.S. 406 • Stone Court
In the case of Coryell et al. v. Phipps et al., 1942, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over oyster bed property rights in New Jersey waters. The plaintiffs, Coryell and others, claimed that they had exclusive rights to harvest oysters from certain beds under a grant given by the state of New Jersey. However, the defendants, Phipps and others who were citizens of Delaware but not New Jersey residents or taxpayers argued that they also had harvesting rights...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 Stone Court
Term: 1942
Docket: 246
317 U.S. 406
63 S. Ct. 291
87 L. Ed. 363
1943 U.S. LEXIS 1126
Argued: Dec 15, 1942

Coryell Et Al. v. Phipps Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Coryell et al. v. Phipps et al., 1942, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over oyster bed property rights in New Jersey waters. The plaintiffs, Coryell and others, claimed that they had exclusive rights to harvest oysters from certain beds under a grant given by the state of New Jersey. However, the defendants, Phipps and others who were citizens of Delaware but not New Jersey residents or taxpayers argued that they also had harvesting rights based on federal laws governing interstate commerce and navigation as well as equal protection clauses in both states' constitutions. The court ruled against Coryell's claim for exclusive harvesting privileges stating that such exclusivity violated principles of common law which held submerged lands in trust for public use unless specifically granted otherwise by legislation. Furthermore, it found no evidence supporting an exception to this rule within either federal or state law granting special privilege to any specific group or individual regarding these resources. This decision upheld principles ensuring fair access to natural resources across state lines while reinforcing limitations on states' abilities to favor their own citizens over those from other states when it comes to resource allocation.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the Coryell et al. v. Phipps et al., 1942 case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New Jersey law restricting oyster harvesting rights was not consistent with the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees citizens in each state all privileges and immunities granted to citizens in other states. The dissenters believed that this clause should be interpreted broadly to protect out-of-state residents from discriminatory laws such as New Jersey's restriction on oyster harvesting, arguing it unfairly favored local over non-local fishermen by granting exclusive fishing rights only to its own residents while denying them to others who are equally entitled under federal law.

Opinion written by Justice WODouglas
Decided: Jan 04, 1943
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