Nicchia v. People of State of New York
| Decision Date | 06 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 74,74 |
| Citation | 254 U.S. 228,65 L.Ed. 235,13 A.L.R. 826,41 S.Ct. 103 |
| Parties | NICCHIA v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Joseph Nicchia and George P. Foulk, both of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Harry G. Anderson, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the People of State of New York.
Plaintiff in error owned two dogs which she harbored within New York City without having obtained the license required by chapter 115, Laws of New York of 1894, chapter 412, Laws 1895, and chapter 495, Laws 1902. She was charged with violating the statute on November 11, 1916 found guilty in the City Magistrates' Court, Brooklyn, and required to pay a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment without opinion.
Chapter 115 as amended provides:
* * *
The validity of the act was questioned upon the ground that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, section 1, by 'depriving a citizen of his liberty without due process of law, to wit, the liberty of owning and harboring a dog without procuring a license from and paying a fee therefor to the Society, a private corporation.' In Fox v. Mohawk & H. R. Humane Society (1901) 165 N. Y. 517, 59 N. E. 353, 51 L. R. A. 681, 80 Am. St. Rep. 767, the Court of Appeals declared a statute essentially the same as chapter 115 before the amendment of 1902 invalid under the state Constitution because it appropriated public funds for the use of a private corporation and also because it conferred an exclusive privilege. But the court repudiated the suggestion that the statute deprived dog owners of property without due process...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peters
...R.R. Co., 166 U.S. 698, 706, 705, 17 S.Ct. 693, 696, 695-96, 41 L.Ed. 1169, 1172, 1171 (1897). See also Nicchia v. New York, 254 U.S. 228, 41 S.Ct. 103, 65 L.Ed. 235 (1920). Indeed, because it is likely that a governmental authority could ban pit bulls outright without offending the due pro......
-
McNeely v. US
...results. Because dog ownership is a form of property interest not protected by the First Amendment, see Nicchia v. New York, 254 U.S. 228, 230, 41 S.Ct. 103, 65 L.Ed. 235 (1920) ("Property in dogs is of an imperfect or qualified nature and they may be subjected to peculiar and drastic polic......
-
Hearn v. City of Overland Park
...Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 8 L.Ed.2d 130, 82 S.Ct. 987 (1962)." 228 Kan. at 392, 614 P.2d 987. In Nicchia v. New York, 254 U.S. 228, 41 S.Ct. 103, 65 L.Ed. 235 (1920), the United States Supreme Court recognized that local governmental bodies possess broad powers to regulate the o......
-
State v. DeFrancesco, 14971
...The parties agree that § 26-40a does not interfere with constitutionally protected rights. See Nicchia v. New York, 254 U.S. 228, 230-31, 41 S.Ct. 103, 104, 65 L.Ed. 235 (1920); Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton R. Co., 166 U.S. 698, 701, 704, 17 S.Ct. 693, 694, 695, 41 L.Ed. 1169 (1897) ......
-
Dog Process or Due Pupcess? Federal Court Misses Opportunity to Modernize Pet Due Process Jurisprudence: Lunon v. Botsford.
...Id. (quoting Sentell v. New Orleans & C.R. Co., 166 U.S. 698, 704 (1897)). (148) Id. (quoting Nicchia v. People of State of New York, 254 U. S. 228, 230-31 (149) See, e.g., Chloe Melas, 6-year-old boy praised by Anne Hathaway on social media for saving little sister from dog attack, CNN......