<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="0.91">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: 1896 Term Decisions</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1896/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  
   <item>
    <title>Allgeyer v. Louisiana (No. 446)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Does the Louisiana law violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause which, according to Allegyer and Company, protects its liberty to enter into contracts with businesses of its choice?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court found that the Louisiana statute deprived Allgeyer and Company of its liberty without due process of law as protected by the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that even though the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company of New York did not maintain an office or agent in Louisiana, Allgeyer and Company could still, as it did, enter into a contract with Atlantic Mutual in the state of New York to insure its Louisiana property. Justice Peckham's opinion makes clear the linkage between an individual's economic liberty and the due process clause.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1896/1896_446/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 132)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Could the government deny naturalization to persons born in the United States in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;No. The government could not deny naturalization to anyone born in the United States. To reach this conclusion, Justice Gray's tedious majority opinion managed to traverse much of western civilization.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1896/1896_132/</link>
   </item>
  
 </channel>
</rss>
