Missouri v. Illinois case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
200
U.S. 496 (1906)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Complainant, the State
of Missouri, brought a suit against defendants, the State of Illinois
and the Sanitary District of Chicago, Illinois, to restrain an
anticipated discharge of Chicago sewage through an artificial channel
into a river that emptied into a tributary of the Mississippi River,
in the State of Illinois. A demurrer to the bill was overruled. A
supplemental bill alleged that the drainage canal had been opened and
put into operation.
FACTS: Missouri contended that the discharge of sewage from Illinois was a nuisance and causing an increase of diseases, such as typhoid, cholera, dysentery, anthrax, and tetanus. Illinois contended that under its sewage discharge system, the water from the Illinois River into the Mississippi was actually purer than it was before, and that many Missouri towns and cities along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers discharged their sewage into those rivers. The Court held that in light of the fact that Missouri deliberately permitted discharges similar to those of which it complained, it warranted the strictest proof that its own conduct did not produce the nuisance, or at least so conduce to it that courts would not be curious to apportion the blame. Missouri's case depended on inference of the unseen. First, that typhoid fever had increased and that the typhoid bacillus could survive the journey. The evidence was, at best, in equipoise. At worst, the presence of causes of infection from Missouri's sewage discharge made the case weaker in. The Court dismissed the bill without prejudice because, upon the evidence, the proof fell below the allegations of the bill.
CONCLUSION: The Court dismissed the bill without prejudice.
FACTS: Missouri contended that the discharge of sewage from Illinois was a nuisance and causing an increase of diseases, such as typhoid, cholera, dysentery, anthrax, and tetanus. Illinois contended that under its sewage discharge system, the water from the Illinois River into the Mississippi was actually purer than it was before, and that many Missouri towns and cities along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers discharged their sewage into those rivers. The Court held that in light of the fact that Missouri deliberately permitted discharges similar to those of which it complained, it warranted the strictest proof that its own conduct did not produce the nuisance, or at least so conduce to it that courts would not be curious to apportion the blame. Missouri's case depended on inference of the unseen. First, that typhoid fever had increased and that the typhoid bacillus could survive the journey. The evidence was, at best, in equipoise. At worst, the presence of causes of infection from Missouri's sewage discharge made the case weaker in. The Court dismissed the bill without prejudice because, upon the evidence, the proof fell below the allegations of the bill.
CONCLUSION: The Court dismissed the bill without prejudice.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment