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

Miller v. Mayor Of New York And Others

• 1883 • 109 U.S. 385 • Waite Court
In Miller v. Mayor of New York and Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a New York City ordinance was constitutional. The ordinance in question prohibited the sale of certain types of alcoholic beverages in the city. The plaintiffs argued that the ordinance violated their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the police...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: 1883
Docket: 99
109 U.S. 385
3 S. Ct. 228
27 L. Ed. 971
1883 U.S. LEXIS 980
Argued: Nov 06, 1883

Miller v. Mayor Of New York And Others

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Miller v. Mayor of New York and Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a New York City ordinance was constitutional. The ordinance in question prohibited the sale of certain types of alcoholic beverages in the city. The plaintiffs argued that the ordinance violated their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the police power of the state, and that it was not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction on the plaintiffs' rights. The Court also noted that the ordinance was not an infringement on the plaintiffs' right to due process, as it was not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction on their rights. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional and did not violate the plaintiffs' right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's decision was a victory for the city of New York, as it allowed the city to continue to regulate the sale of certain types of alcoholic beverages.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Miller v. Mayor of New York and Others, arguing that the Court should not have granted a writ of mandamus to compel the mayor to issue a license for an oyster bed. He argued that it was within the discretion of local authorities to determine whether or not such licenses should be issued, and as long as there were no constitutional violations involved, they had every right to refuse them. Furthermore, he noted that if this decision set a precedent allowing federal courts to interfere with local authority decisions like these then it would open up many more cases where people could challenge similar decisions made by state governments without any legal basis. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that granting this writ was wrong because it interfered with local authority's ability to make their own determinations on matters which did not involve any constitutional issues or rights being violated.

Opinion written by Justice SJField
Decided: Nov 26, 1883
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