| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Heine v. The Levee Commissioners was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1874. The case involved a dispute between the Levee Commissioners of Louisiana and a man named Charles Heine. Heine had purchased a large tract of land in Louisiana in 1868, and the Levee Commissioners had subsequently built a levee on the land. Heine argued that the levee had caused the land to become flooded and that he had suffered a financial loss as a result. He sued the Levee Commissioners for damages. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Levee Commissioners. The Court held that the levee was a public work and that the Levee Commissioners had acted in good faith in building it. The Court also held that the levee was necessary for the public good and that Heine had not been able to prove that the levee had caused the flooding of his land. As a result, the Court held that Heine was not entitled to any damages from the Levee Commissioners.
In Heine v. The Levee Commissioners, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a levee district had authority to issue bonds and levy taxes for the purpose of constructing levees. The majority opinion held that it did not have such power, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that Congress had granted broad powers to states in order to enable them to protect their citizens from floods and other natural disasters through public works projects like levees; thus, he reasoned that Louisiana's legislature must have intended for its laws creating local districts with taxing powers be used for these purposes as well. Furthermore, he noted that no one would dispute the necessity of protecting citizens against flooding or deny the state’s right “to provide by taxation means sufficient therefor” if necessary. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that since Congress has given states broad discretion in matters relating to public safety and welfare – including flood control – then it follows logically they should also be allowed some leeway when granting local governments similar powers within their own borders as well.