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

Morgan Et Al. v. United States Et Al.

• 1935 • 298 U.S. 468 • Hughes Court
In the 1935 case Morgan et al. v. United States et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a group of Louisiana slaughterhouse operators were not given due process during hearings held by the Secretary of Agriculture to determine fair rates for their services under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The court found that because they had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present evidence, their Fifth Amendment rights were violated. This decision established an important precedent...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 Hughes Court
Term: 1935
Docket: 686
298 U.S. 468
56 S. Ct. 906
80 L. Ed. 1288
1936 U.S. LEXIS 717
Argued: Apr 29, 1936

Morgan Et Al. v. United States Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1935 case Morgan et al. v. United States et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a group of Louisiana slaughterhouse operators were not given due process during hearings held by the Secretary of Agriculture to determine fair rates for their services under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The court found that because they had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present evidence, their Fifth Amendment rights were violated. This decision established an important precedent regarding administrative law, asserting that individuals have a right to be heard in any proceeding which could potentially deprive them of property or livelihood.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Morgan et al. v. United States et al., Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a regulation by the Secretary of Agriculture setting rates for stockyard services was an overreach of executive power and violated due process rights. He contended that Congress did not have authority to delegate its legislative powers to an administrative agency, in this case, the Secretary of Agriculture, without providing clear standards or guidelines on how those powers should be exercised. Furthermore, he believed that allowing such delegation would undermine separation of powers principles and lead to arbitrary rule-making by unelected officials with no accountability or oversight from elected representatives in Congress. Additionally, Justice McReynolds expressed concern about procedural fairness as he felt there was insufficient opportunity given for affected parties (stockyard operators) to present evidence and challenge decisions made by administrative agencies under these regulations.

Opinion written by Justice CEHughes(2)
Decided: May 25, 1936
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