Missouri v. Illinois
Citations
- 200 U.S. 496
- 26 S. Ct. 268
- 50 L. Ed. 572
- 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1494
Syllabus
<p>Missouri filed its bill in this court to enjoin Illinois and the Sanitary Dis■trict of Chicago from discharging sewage through an artificial channel connecting Lake Michigan with the Desplaines River, a tributary of ’ the’ Illinois, the latter of which empties into the Mississippi River above St. -Louis, claiming that such sewage so polluted the water of the Mississippi as to render it unfit to drink and productive of typhoid fever and other diseases. Illinois denied the jurisdiction of this court, and. the allegations of the bill, and alleged that- if the conditions complained of ■ at St. Louis existed they resulted from discharge of sewage into the Mississippi by cities of Missouri and from other causes for which Illinois was not responsible. A demurrer was overruled, with leave to answer, 180 U. S.- 208; after answer and taking of proof including much expert , testimony as to effect of sewage on water and health, held, that:</p> <p>This court has jurisdiction and authority to deal with a question of this nature between two States, which, if it arose between'two independent ' sovereignties, might lead to war.</p> <p>In such a ease, while this court cannot take the place of a legislature it must determine whether there is ’ any principle of law, and if any what, on which the plaintiff State can recover.</p> <p>Every matter which -would be cognizable in equity if between private citizens in the same jurisdiction would not warrant this court in interfering if such matter arose between States; this court should only intervene to enjoin the action of one State at the instance of another when the case is of serious magnitude, clearly and fully proved; and in such a case only such principles should be applied as this court is prepared deliberately .to maintain.</p> <p>While a State may have relief in this court against another State to prevent it from discharging sewage through an artificial channel into, and thereby polluting the waters of, a river flowing through bo
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that public nuisance actions “should be of serious magnitude, clearly and fully proved”
- adjudicating claim though it did not concern “nuisance of the simple kind that was known to the older common law”
- “fact that this court must decide does not mean, of course, that it takes the place of a legislature”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Holmes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
77 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Illinois v. City of MilwaukeeSupreme Court· 1972-04-24· cited 610×
- City of Milwaukee v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1981-04-28· cited 543×
- International Paper Co. v. OuelletteSupreme Court· 1987-01-21· cited 535×
- Pennsylvania v. West VirginiaSupreme Court· 1923-06-11· cited 523×
- Georgia v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court· 1945-03-26· cited 482×
- Arkansas v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1992-02-26· cited 446×
- Wyoming v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1992-01-22· cited 418×
- Principality of Monaco v. MississippiSupreme Court· 1934-05-21· cited 371×
- Connecticut v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1931-02-24· cited 237×
- West Virginia Ex Rel. Dyer v. SimsSupreme Court· 1951-04-09· cited 166×
- Sanitary District of Chicago v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1925-01-05· cited 154×
- Nebraska v. WyomingSupreme Court· 1945-06-11· cited 140×
- New Jersey v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1931-05-04· cited 127×
- Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp.Supreme Court· 1971-03-23· cited 117×
- Wyoming v. ColoradoSupreme Court· 1922-06-05· cited 115×
- Wisconsin v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1929-01-14· cited 108×
- New York v. New JerseySupreme Court· 1921-05-02· cited 108×
- Connecticut v. American Elec. Power Co., Inc.Second Circuit· 2009-09-21· cited 91×
- United States v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., a CorporationThird Circuit· 1974-05-23· cited 88×
- Texas v. New MexicoSupreme Court· 1983-06-17· cited 87×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Other cases named Missouri v. Illinois
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
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.