Geer v. Connecticut
Citations
- 161 U.S. 519
- 16 S. Ct. 600
- 40 L. Ed. 793
- 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2185
Syllabus
<p>The provision in the General Statutes of Connecticut, (Revision of 1888, § 2516,) that “no person shall at any time kill any woodcock, ruffled grouse or quail for the purpose of conveying the same beyond the limits of this State; or shall transport or have in possession, with intent to procure the transportation beyond said limits, any of such birds killed within this State,” is legislation which it is within the constitutional power of the legislature of the State to enact.</p>
About this case
Geer v. Connecticut
Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court decision, which dealt with the transportation of wild fowl over state lines. Geer held that the states owned the wild animals within their borders and could strictly regulate their management and harvest. According to the Geer Court, "the right to preserve game flows from the undoubted existence in the State of a police power." Although this statement is often quoted by state advocates, it is followed by the qualification that this power reaches only "in so far as its exercise may not be incompatible with, or restrained by, the rights conveyed to the Federal government by the Constitution." The Geer decision supported the view that the states owned all resident wildlife, but at the time there were no conflicting federal wildlife laws.[1]
Contents
See also
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geer_v._Connecticut&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: See also")
_Missouri v. Holland _, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)
_Hunt v. United States _, 278 U.S. 96 (1928)
_Kleppe v. New Mexico _, 426 U.S. 529 (1976)
References
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geer_v._Connecticut&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: References")
- ↑ Coggins, G. C. (1980). "Wildlife and the Constitution: the walls come tumbling down". Washington Law Review. 55: 295–358.
Further reading
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geer_v._Connecticut&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: Further reading")
- Landres, Peter; Meyer, Shannon; Matthews, Sue (2001). "The Wilderness Act and Fish Stocking: An Overview of Legislation, Judicial Interpretation, and Agency Implementation". Ecosystems. 4 (4): 287–295. Bibcode :2001Ecosy...4..287L . doi :10.1007/s10021-001-0011-6 . S2CID 137750 .
External links
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geer_v._Connecticut&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: External links")
- Works related to Geer v. Connecticut at Wikisource
- Text of Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geer_v._Connecticut&oldid=1311655833 "
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “‘[A]ll the animals which can be taken upon the earth, in the sea, or in the air, that is to say, wild animals, belong to those who take them’ ”
- State has property interest in and police power over wild game within its jurisdiction because of its sovereign capacity as representative of the people in their common ownership of wild game.
- this power, which the Colonies possessed, remains in the States “at the present day, in so far as its exercise may be not incompatible with, or restrained by, the rights conveyed to the Federal government by the Constitution”
- State has property interest in and police power over wild game within its jurisdiction because of its sovereign capacity as representative of the people in their common ownership of wild game.
- trusteeship for the benefit of state’s people implies legislative duty “to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust, and secure its beneficial use in the future to the people of the state”
- trusteeship for the benefit of state's people implies legislative duty “to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust, and secure its beneficial use in the future to the people of the state”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brewer, Field, Harlan, Peckham, White
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
241 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court· 1991-09-13· cited 3,458×
- Hughes v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1979-04-24· cited 760×
- The Minnesota Rate CasesSupreme Court· 1913-06-09· cited 719×
- Toomer v. WitsellSupreme Court· 1948-10-11· cited 671×
- Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore.Supreme Court· 1995-06-29· cited 631×
- Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc.Supreme Court· 1935-03-04· cited 581×
- H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du MondSupreme Court· 1949-04-18· cited 560×
- Pennsylvania v. West VirginiaSupreme Court· 1923-06-11· cited 523×
- Takahashi v. Fish & Game CommissionSupreme Court· 1948-06-07· cited 486×
- South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros.Supreme Court· 1938-02-14· cited 424×
- Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm'n of Mont.Supreme Court· 1978-05-23· cited 390×
- Kleppe v. New MexicoSupreme Court· 1976-06-17· cited 342×
- Patsone v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1914-01-19· cited 328×
- American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. ScheinerSupreme Court· 1987-06-23· cited 290×
- SC Hwy. Dept. v. Barnwell Bros.Supreme Court· 1938-02-14· cited 260×
- Ziffrin, Inc. v. ReevesSupreme Court· 1939-11-13· cited 257×
- Ohio Oil Company v. IndianaSupreme Court· 1900-04-09· cited 254×
- Tulee v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1942-03-30· cited 235×
- Robinson Township v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2013-12-19· cited 221×
- Sligh v. KirkwoodSupreme Court· 1915-04-05· cited 220×
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court· 1824-03-18· cited 2,543×
- SHERLOCK v. Alling, AdmInistratorSupreme Court· 1876-11-18· cited 306×
- Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York Commissioners of Immigration v. North German LloydSupreme Court· 1876-03-20· cited 300×
- McCready v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1877-04-30· cited 261×
- Hall v. DeCuirSupreme Court· 1878-01-14· cited 236×
- Plumley v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1894-12-17· cited 221×
- Spring Valley Water Works v. SchottlerSupreme Court· 1884-02-04· cited 147×
- Chy Lung v. FreemanSupreme Court· 1876-03-20· cited 141×
- Dunniway v. LawsonIdaho Supreme Court· 1890-01-29· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.