Morey v. Doud
| Morey v. Doud | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 24, 1957 Decided June 24, 1957 | |
| Full case name | Lloyd Morey, Auditor of Public Accounts of the State of Illinois, Latham Castle, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and Benjamin S. Adamowski, State's Attorney of Cook County, Illinois, Appellants v. George W. Doud, et al., Doing Business as Bondified Systems, et al. |
| Citations | 354 U.S. 457 (more) 77 S. Ct. 1354; 1 L. Ed. 2d 1485 |
| Holding | |
| A state may not grant a specific company an exception to the requirements of the law that is applicable to everyone else. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burton |
| Dissent | Black |
| Dissent | Frankfurter, joined by Harlan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amend. XIV | |
Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457 (1957),[1] was a case where Doud and two partners sold 'Bondified' brand money orders in Illinois, directly or through agents such as drug and grocery stores. A state law required any seller or issuer of money orders to secure a license and submit to state regulation, except that the statute, by name, explicitly exempted the American Express Company from these requirements.
Doud, his partners and one of his agents, fearing prosecution under the law, sued the state, arguing the law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the special exemption only for American Express violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
See also
References
External links
- Text of Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457 (1957) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |