Mugler v. Kansas case brief summary
HOLDING:
-The Court affirmed, holding the prohibition statute was a valid exercise of police power to control the evils associated with drinking.
123 U.S. 623
SYNOPSIS: Defendant appealed a Supreme Court of Kansas order affirming his conviction for selling and manufacturing intoxicating liquors challenging the validity of Kansas's prohibition statute. The State of Kansas appealed the dismissal of a nuisance action against a person convicted under the prohibition statute.
FACTS:
-In one case, defendant was found guilty of selling and manufacturing intoxicating liquors without having the license or permit required by the prohibition statute.
FACTS:
-In one case, defendant was found guilty of selling and manufacturing intoxicating liquors without having the license or permit required by the prohibition statute.
-Defendant, having been found guilty, was fined and ordered to be committed to jail until the fine was paid. -Each judgment was affirmed.
-Defendant appealed, contending that he was denied rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
HOLDING:
-The Court affirmed, holding the prohibition statute was a valid exercise of police power to control the evils associated with drinking.
ANALYSIS:
-In another case, the State appealed the dismissal of a nuisance action against the owner of a building who had violated the prohibition statute.
-In another case, the State appealed the dismissal of a nuisance action against the owner of a building who had violated the prohibition statute.
-The Court reversed that decision, holding that a state could claim a building that constituted a brewery was a nuisance and did not have to compensate the owner because there was no taking when the owner could use the building for lawful purposes.
OUTCOME: The conviction was affirmed because the prohibition statute did not deny defendant any right, privilege, or immunity secured to him by the United States Constitution, and was a valid exercise of police power. The dismissal of the nuisance action was reversed because it did not constitute a taking.
---
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?
OUTCOME: The conviction was affirmed because the prohibition statute did not deny defendant any right, privilege, or immunity secured to him by the United States Constitution, and was a valid exercise of police power. The dismissal of the nuisance action was reversed because it did not constitute a taking.
---
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