New Orleans v. Clark 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 defective street. The case arose when a man named Clark was injured while riding a horse on a street in New Orleans. Clark sued the city for damages, claiming that the street was in a state of disrepair and that the city was negligent in maintaining it. The Supreme Court held that the city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The Court reasoned that the city had a duty to maintain the streets in a safe condition and that it had breached that duty by failing to do so. The Court also noted that the city had a duty to warn the public of any dangerous conditions on the street. The Court concluded that the city was liable for Clark's injuries and awarded him damages. The decision in New Orleans v. Clark established that cities can be held liable for damages caused by defective streets. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the idea that cities have a duty to maintain their streets in a safe condition.

In the case of New Orleans v. Clark, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax imposed by Louisiana on non-residents who owned property in the state was unconstitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not and upheld the tax as constitutional. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that such taxation violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated against non-residents solely based on their residency status. He further argued that since no other state had adopted similar laws, there could be no legitimate purpose for such discrimination; thus making it an arbitrary exercise of power which should not be allowed under our Constitution's guarantee of fundamental rights to all citizens regardless of where they reside or own property.