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

The State Of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company And The Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Company, Limited

• 1914 • 237 U.S. 678 • White Court
In the 1914 case of The State of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company and the Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Company, Limited, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Georgia's right to protect its natural resources from out-of-state pollution sources. The state had sued two copper companies located in Tennessee for releasing sulphurous gases that were damaging forests and crops across state lines in Georgia. This was one of the first cases where a state sought legal remedy for air pollution...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 White Court
Term: 1914
Docket: 1 ORIG
237 U.S. 678
35 S. Ct. 752
59 L. Ed. 1173
1915 U.S. LEXIS 1383

The State Of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company And The Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Company, Limited

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1914 case of The State of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company and the Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Company, Limited, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Georgia's right to protect its natural resources from out-of-state pollution sources. The state had sued two copper companies located in Tennessee for releasing sulphurous gases that were damaging forests and crops across state lines in Georgia. This was one of the first cases where a state sought legal remedy for air pollution originating from another state - an issue which is now addressed by federal environmental laws. In their decision, the justices emphasized states' rights to safeguard their own natural resources against harmful external influences.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for The State of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company and the Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Company, Limited case in 1914, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to grant an injunction against two copper companies accused of causing air pollution that was damaging forests and crops in Georgia. He argued that while it is true that states have a right to protect their natural resources from harm caused by out-of-state entities, this principle should not be applied without considering other factors such as economic implications. In his view, if a state could sue every time its interests were harmed by another state or entity therein - even when there are no clear violations of rights - then interstate commerce would become impossible due to endless litigation. Furthermore, he believed that granting an injunction based on potential future damages was speculative and inappropriate since actual damage had not yet been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: Jun 01, 1915
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