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

Mcquade v. Trenton

• 1898 • 172 U.S. 636 • Fuller Court
In the case of McQuade v. Trenton in 1898, James McQuade sued the city of Trenton, New Jersey over a local ordinance that prohibited him from operating his business on Sundays. The Supreme Court ruled against McQuade, upholding the constitutionality of "blue laws" which restrict certain activities on Sundays for religious reasons. The court found that these laws were not an infringement upon individual rights or liberties as they served to promote public health and welfare by ensuring a...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 Fuller Court
Term: 1898
Docket: 125
172 U.S. 636
19 S. Ct. 292
43 L. Ed. 581
1899 U.S. LEXIS 1403
Argued: Jan 12, 1899

Mcquade v. Trenton

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of McQuade v. Trenton in 1898, James McQuade sued the city of Trenton, New Jersey over a local ordinance that prohibited him from operating his business on Sundays. The Supreme Court ruled against McQuade, upholding the constitutionality of "blue laws" which restrict certain activities on Sundays for religious reasons. The court found that these laws were not an infringement upon individual rights or liberties as they served to promote public health and welfare by ensuring a universal day of rest. This decision reinforced states' police powers - their authority to regulate behavior and enforce order within their jurisdiction for betterment of health, safety, morals and general welfare.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for McQuade v. Trenton, it was argued that the ordinance in question did not infringe upon any constitutional rights of the plaintiff. The dissenting justices believed that a municipality has inherent power to regulate its streets and public places for purposes connected with public convenience or safety, even if this regulation may indirectly affect businesses operating within these spaces. They contended that such regulations are not an invasion of property rights without due process of law nor do they deny equal protection under the law as long as they apply equally to all individuals or businesses affected by them. In their view, there was no evidence presented in this case showing arbitrary action on part of city officials or unjust discrimination against certain business owners which would make this ordinance unconstitutional.

Opinion written by Justice HBBrown
Decided: Jan 30, 1899
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