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

County Of Cass v. Johnston

• 1877 • 95 U.S. 360 • Waite Court
In County of Cass v. Johnston, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county in the state of Iowa had the authority to levy a tax on the property of a non-resident. The plaintiff, Johnston, was a non-resident of the county and owned property within its boundaries. The county had levied a tax on Johnston's property, and Johnston argued that the county did not have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court held that the county did have the authority to levy the tax....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: 1877
Docket: 60
95 U.S. 360
24 L. Ed. 416
1877 U.S. LEXIS 2182
Argued: Oct 29, 1877

County Of Cass v. Johnston

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In County of Cass v. Johnston, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county in the state of Iowa had the authority to levy a tax on the property of a non-resident. The plaintiff, Johnston, was a non-resident of the county and owned property within its boundaries. The county had levied a tax on Johnston's property, and Johnston argued that the county did not have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court held that the county did have the authority to levy the tax. The Court reasoned that the state of Iowa had granted the county the power to levy taxes, and that the county had the right to tax the property of non-residents. The Court also noted that the tax was not discriminatory, as it was applied equally to all non-residents. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the county had the authority to levy a tax on the property of a non-resident, and that the tax was not discriminatory. The Court's decision affirmed the county's right to levy taxes on non-residents.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of County of Cass v. Johnston, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by its failure to repair a bridge that had been damaged in an accident. The majority opinion found that counties are not liable for such damages and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim against them. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: first, he argued that under common law principles counties should be held responsible for maintaining public roads and bridges; second, he noted that while there may have been no legal obligation to repair the bridge at issue here, it would still have been prudent to do so given its importance as a public thoroughfare. Ultimately then, Justice Field concluded that if any party is going to bear responsibility for failing to maintain or repair this particular bridge it should be Cass County itself rather than leaving innocent victims without recourse when they suffer harm due to negligence on behalf of local government entities.

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Nov 12, 1877
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