Geer vs. Connecticut

GEER VS. CONNECTICUT is the 1896 lawsuit that definitively formed the basis for state law concerning the ownership of animals. The case was brought against Edward M. Geer, on the basis that he was attempting to sell animals in a state in which they would be considered illegally obtained, although he had obtained them in another state through legal means. The Supreme Court ruled that states should operate their right to wildlife as a trust for the benefit of the people.

In other words, individual states were confirmed as having the right to own and control flora and fauna above and beyond the abilities and rights of private interests. Unlike most of Europe, therefore, the bulk of the land of the United States is managed in trust by the state, which guarantees the rights of individuals to use the land and its resources in a responsible way. This means American citizens have the right to roam over the land and pursue hunting and fishing activities to a much greater extent than in most other countries, where private interests control access to those resources. These rights depend on the Court's decision that the state has inherent within it a proper “police power,” which should be obeyed. This decision harked back to the precedent set by Magna Carta, in which again community rights were held to outweigh private rights.

Court decisions are subject to appeal and subsequent modification by later decisions, which may be taken in the light of new information or unanticipated environmental change as much as to correct any errors that may have occurred previously. Consequently, it is not surprising that Geer vs. Connecticut was overturned in 1979 by the case of Hughes vs. Oklahoma.