Anderson v. Carkins was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Iowa. The plaintiff, Anderson, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Carkins, in 1883. Carkins, however, argued that the deed was invalid because it had not been properly recorded. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Anderson, ruling that the deed was valid and that Anderson was the rightful owner of the land. The Court held that the deed was valid because it had been signed by both parties and was witnessed by two other individuals. Furthermore, the Court noted that the deed had been delivered to Anderson and that he had taken possession of the land. The Court also held that Carkins was estopped from denying the validity of the deed because he had accepted payment from Anderson and had allowed him to take possession of the land. The Court concluded that Anderson was the rightful owner of the land and that Carkins had no right to contest the validity of the deed.

In the Supreme Court case of Anderson v. Carkins, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be reversed. He disagreed with their interpretation of the statute at issue, arguing that it did not provide for an award of attorney fees to either party in this particular case. Furthermore, he argued that even if such an award were available under the statute, it would still be inappropriate because there had been no showing by either party as to why they deserved such an award or what amount would be appropriate. Finally, Justice Scalia noted that allowing awards like these could lead to unnecessary litigation over attorney fees and other costs associated with civil cases – something Congress had sought to avoid when enacting this particular law.