St. Louis v. Myers was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The case arose when a man named Myers was injured while riding his horse on a street in St. Louis. The street was in a state of disrepair, and Myers argued that the city was liable for his injuries because it had failed to maintain the street. The Supreme Court held that the city was not liable for Myers' injuries. The Court reasoned that the city had no duty to maintain the street, and that the city was not responsible for the condition of the street. The Court also noted that the city had not been negligent in its maintenance of the street, and that the city had not created the dangerous condition of the street. The Court's decision in St. Louis v. Myers established that a city cannot be held liable for damages caused by a defective street unless the city had a duty to maintain the street and was negligent in its maintenance. The Court's decision also established that a city cannot be held liable for damages caused by a defective street if the city did not create the dangerous condition of the street.

In St. Louis v. Myers, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a city ordinance that prohibited certain types of businesses from operating within its limits violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion held that it did not, as there was no evidence to suggest any discriminatory intent on behalf of the city in passing such an ordinance. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while cities may have broad powers to regulate their own affairs and pass ordinances for public health and safety purposes, they must do so without discriminating against particular classes or individuals based on race or other protected characteristics under the Constitution. He further argued that since this ordinance only applied to one type of business—a pawn shop owned by a black man—it could be seen as having been passed with discriminatory intent and thus should be struck down as unconstitutional under equal protection principles established in prior cases like Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886).