“No Quixotry in Redress of Grievances”: How Community Abatement of Public Nuisances Disappeared from American Law

IF 0.8 3区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY Law and History Review Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1017/S0738248022000566
W. Meyer
{"title":"“No Quixotry in Redress of Grievances”: How Community Abatement of Public Nuisances Disappeared from American Law","authors":"W. Meyer","doi":"10.1017/S0738248022000566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Before 1859, the right of any member of the public to abate a public nuisance existed unchallenged in American law as a judicially recognized form of popular justice. In that year, the decision in Brown v. Perkins, authored by Massachusetts Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw, restricted the right to those who had suffered particular injury. The decision grew out of a suit for damages by the owner of an illegal saloon, which had been sacked by a local mob. Reversing what Shaw himself had said in his charge to the jury in the same suit in the preceding year, it had little grounding in earlier American case law. Shaw's prestige and the apparent demands of public policy, however, helped win courts over to the new doctrine in relatively short order. The change was most enthusiastically promoted by judges and scholars of conservative leanings disturbed by the threat of popular excess and most resisted by those of more radical inclinations. It paralleled American law's broader shift in the same period toward centralized regulation and the constitutionalization of rights and powers.","PeriodicalId":17960,"journal":{"name":"Law and History Review","volume":"41 1","pages":"171 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and History Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0738248022000566","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Before 1859, the right of any member of the public to abate a public nuisance existed unchallenged in American law as a judicially recognized form of popular justice. In that year, the decision in Brown v. Perkins, authored by Massachusetts Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw, restricted the right to those who had suffered particular injury. The decision grew out of a suit for damages by the owner of an illegal saloon, which had been sacked by a local mob. Reversing what Shaw himself had said in his charge to the jury in the same suit in the preceding year, it had little grounding in earlier American case law. Shaw's prestige and the apparent demands of public policy, however, helped win courts over to the new doctrine in relatively short order. The change was most enthusiastically promoted by judges and scholars of conservative leanings disturbed by the threat of popular excess and most resisted by those of more radical inclinations. It paralleled American law's broader shift in the same period toward centralized regulation and the constitutionalization of rights and powers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“没有冤屈的唐吉诃德式的纠正”:美国法律中对公害的社区减刑是如何消失的
摘要在1859年之前,任何公众减少公害的权利在美国法律中都是不受质疑的,这是一种司法认可的大众司法形式。那一年,马萨诸塞州首席大法官Lemuel Shaw撰写的Brown诉Perkins案的裁决将权利限制在那些遭受特殊伤害的人身上。这一决定源于一家非法沙龙的老板要求赔偿损失的诉讼,该沙龙已被当地暴徒解雇。推翻了肖本人在前一年同一诉讼中对陪审团的指控,这在早期的美国判例法中几乎没有依据。然而,肖的声望和对公共政策的明显要求,帮助法庭在相对较短的时间内接受了新学说。保守倾向的法官和学者最积极地推动了这一变化,他们对民众过度的威胁感到不安,而那些更激进倾向的人则最抵制这一变化。它与美国法律在同一时期向集中监管和权利和权力宪法化的更广泛转变相平行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and History Review (LHR), America"s leading legal history journal, encompasses American, European, and ancient legal history issues. The journal"s purpose is to further research in the fields of the social history of law and the history of legal ideas and institutions. LHR features articles, essays, commentaries by international authorities, and reviews of important books on legal history. American Society for Legal History
期刊最新文献
“Lost in Translation”: Extraterritoriality, Subjecthood, and Subjectivity in the Anglo–Yemeni Treaty of 1821 Witnesses for the State: Children and the Making of Modern Evidence Law The Cartojuridism of the British East India Company The Abolition of Slavery in Africa's Legal Histories The Sultans of Zanzibar and the Abolition of Slavery in East Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1