Shreveport v. Holme 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 bridge. The case arose when a man named Holme was injured while crossing a bridge in Shreveport, Louisiana. Holme sued the city for damages, claiming that the bridge was in a state of disrepair and that the city had failed to maintain it properly. The Supreme Court held that the city could be held liable for damages caused by the defective bridge. The Court reasoned that the city had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition and that it had failed to do so. The Court also noted that the city had received notice of the bridge's condition and had failed to take any action to remedy the situation. The Court's decision established that cities can be held liable for damages caused by defective bridges. 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 public infrastructure in a safe condition.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Shreveport v. Holme, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to unjust results. He argued that under prior cases, a municipality had no authority to pass an ordinance or resolution which imposed taxes on property outside of its jurisdiction; thus, he believed it was improper for the Court to uphold such a tax here. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that this case involved two distinct municipalities with separate powers and jurisdictions; as such, he felt it was wrong for one municipality (Shreveport) to impose taxes on another (Holmes). Finally, Justice Field argued that if Shreveport were allowed to collect these taxes from Holmes without any legal basis or authority then other cities could do so as well - leading potentially unfair taxation practices between different municipalities across the country.