| 词条 | North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago |ArgueDate=November 13 |ArgueYear=1908 |DecideDate=December 7 |DecideYear=1908 |FullName=North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago |USVol=211 |USPage=306 |ParallelCitations=29 S. Ct. 101; 53 L. Ed. 195; 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1546 |Prior=Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois |Holding=A post-deprivation remedy can be adequate for property interests. |SCOTUS=1906-1909 |Majority=Peckham |Dissent=Brewer }} North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that no hearing was necessary prior to the seizure, condemnation, and destruction of food which was unwholesome and unfit for use. FactsA Chicago ordinance allowed inspectors to inspect cold storage facilities for rotten food and summarily destroy unfit food. Chicago inspectors ordered the destruction of plaintiff’s poultry. The Company refused the order and sought an injunction. IssueWhether the provisions in the cold storage ordinances of Chicago for destruction of unsafe and unwholesome food are unconstitutional as depriving persons of property without due process of law because they do not provide for notice and opportunity to be heard before such destruction. HoldingUnder its police power, the state has the right to seize and destroy food which is unwholesome and unfit to use, and, in exercising such a power, due process of law, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, does not require previous notice and an opportunity to be heard; the party whose property is destroyed has a right of action after the act which is not affected by the ex parte condemnation of the state officers. Where, under the police power of the state, the legislature may enact laws for the destruction of articles prejudicial to public health, it is, to a great extent, within its discretion as to whether any notice and hearing shall be given, and the fact that the articles might be kept for a period does not give the owners a right to notice and hearing. ImportanceWrongful loss of a property interest can always be made whole, unlike a liberty interest. See also
References1. ^{{ussc|name=North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago|volume=211|page=306|pin=|year=1908}}. External links
| case=North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, {{ussc|211|306|1908|el=no}} | justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/211/306/ | findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/211/306.html | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep211/usrep211306/usrep211306.pdf }}{{DEFAULTSORT:North American Cold Storage Co. V. Chicago}} 5 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court|United States administrative case law|United States civil due process case law|1908 in United States case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。