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

Marshall v. Vicksburg

• 1872 • 82 U.S. 146 • Chase Court
Marshall v. Vicksburg was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by a flood. The case arose when the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, built a levee along the Yazoo River, which caused a flood that damaged the property of the plaintiff, William Marshall. Marshall sued the city for damages, arguing that the city was liable for the flood because it had built the levee. The Supreme Court held that the city was not...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 Chase Court
Term: 1872
82 U.S. 146
21 L. Ed. 121
1872 U.S. LEXIS 1242
Argued: Dec 05, 1872

Marshall v. Vicksburg

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Marshall v. Vicksburg was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by a flood. The case arose when the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, built a levee along the Yazoo River, which caused a flood that damaged the property of the plaintiff, William Marshall. Marshall sued the city for damages, arguing that the city was liable for the flood because it had built the levee. The Supreme Court held that the city was not liable for the damages caused by the flood. The Court reasoned that the city had not acted negligently in building the levee, and that the flood was an act of God that could not have been prevented. The Court also noted that the city had not acted with the intent to cause the flood, and that the city had not been aware of the potential for flooding when it built the levee. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the city of Vicksburg was not liable for the damages caused by the flood. The Court reasoned that the city had not acted negligently in building the levee, and that the flood was an act of God that could not have been prevented.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Marshall v. Vicksburg, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to maintain a bridge over which plaintiff's goods were damaged while being transported across it. The majority opinion found that cities are not liable for such damages as they do not have any authority or control over private property and thus cannot be held responsible for any damage done thereto. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that if a city has taken on responsibility of maintaining public works like bridges then it should also bear liability when those works cause harm to individuals or their property due to negligent maintenance. He argued further that since cities derive benefit from these public works, they should also assume some responsibility towards them and therefore should be made accountable when something goes wrong with them.

Opinion written by Justice NHSwayne
Decided: Jan 27, 1873
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