0
Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113 (1877)
The question that the case was concerned with was whether a state could regulate charges for grain elevators. This is expanded - using the idea that a state has the right to regulate commerce within that state - to the fact that if a private utility is used in the public good, it should be regulated by the state, as the state is acting on behalf of the people's interest.
Granger laws were legal...Apex...:)
Munn v. Illinois regarded the power of States to regulate private property within their borders under the context of public good. The ruling cited precedence under English and American law and found that Illinois did not violate the 14th Amendment in the case.
1876; Munn, a partner in a Chicago warehouse firm, found guilty by an Illinois court of violating the state for fixing maximum charges for storage of grain. The Munn case allowed states to regulate certain businesses within their borders (intrastate), including railroads, and is commonly regarded as a milestone in the growth of federal government regulation.
The outocme of the munn v illinois court case was the outcome of munn v ilinois court case
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Was Emmett Till's court case a supreme court case?
No it was not a supreme court case, but a state case because it was held in the local court
What was the Supreme Court's ruling in Escobedo v Illinois in 1964?
United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment.
Who did the Supreme Court favor in the Skokie Case?
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court that considered the planned Skokie march by the National Socialist Party of America to be a matter of free speech. Thus, the National Socialist Party of America was allowed to march in Skokie and use the swastika as a symbol during their march. (Ultimately, no march was held in Skokie, rather in surrounding neighborhoods). Correction: Skokie case never reached the U.S. Supreme Court. It was considered the "easy case" because precedent from past 1st Amendment issues would have easily overturned the Illinois State Supreme Court ruling
Who won in the Rhodes v Chapman supreme court case?
chapman won the supreme court case
What does the supreme court case us v bagley do?
What does the supreme court case burns v. reed do?
The Supreme Court case of munn vs Illinois showed what?
Supreme Court case of Munn v Illinois showed that states need to regulate certain businesses
The supreme court case of munn v . Illinois showed that?
Farmers had political power
The supreme court case of munn v Illinois decided that?
the granger laws were legal
What did the supreme court case of Munn v Illinois decided on?
The Granger laws were legal.
What did the supreme court case of Munn vs. Illinois decide?
it allowed the government to set prices over some private businesses
What groups were involved in this case the landmark Supreme Court decision Munn v Illinois?
no the chinese are secretly using them as bombs to destroy the united states
What did the supreme court case of Munn v. Illinois give states the right to regulate?
government to set prices over some private businesses.
What did the supreme court case of Munn v. Illinois decide?
The Granger laws were legal -Apex
What was the supreme court case that overturned the munn V. Illinois?
Illinois won. The Supreme Court upheld the Granger laws, establishing as constitutional the principle of public regulation of private businesses involved in serving the public interest.
What did The Supreme Court case of Munn v Illinois show?
Farmers had political power. APEX the granger laws were legal
What is the importance of the Munn vs Illinois case?
Absolutely nothing.
What does the case of Munn v Illinois gave states the right to regulate?
Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113 (1877)The US Supreme Court defined certain private businesses as "private utilities" operating in the public interest, and gave the States the right to regulate the prices they charged their customers. Munn specifically addressed the use of grain elevators, but the Court's decision applied the regulatory rights across a broad spectrum of industries, including railroads, that operated intrastate.
