| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Clark v. Herington, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, Clark, claimed that he had purchased the disputed property from an individual who had obtained it through a patent issued by the United States government under railroad legislation passed in 1862 and 1863. However, Herington argued that this patent was invalid because at the time it was issued (in 1871), there were pre-existing claims to this land based on homestead laws which should have taken precedence over any subsequent patents. The court ruled in favor of Herington stating that when Congress granted lands to railroads for construction purposes under these acts, they did not intend to include lands which settlers could claim under existing homestead or pre-emption laws before such grants took effect. Therefore, if at any point between approval of railway route maps and issuance of patents for those lands someone established valid rights under homesteading or pre-emption laws then their rights would take priority over later issued patents.
In the dissenting opinion for Clark v. Herington, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Kansas law prohibiting foreign corporations from doing business in the state unless they agreed not to remove any lawsuits against them to federal court was incorrect. The dissent contended that this law violated both the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against out-of-state businesses. They also believed it infringed on Congress' power under Article III Section 2 of Constitution which grants citizens or subjects of foreign states access to federal courts in civil cases where more than $2,000 is at stake. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of Judiciary Act of 1887-88 as allowing such restrictions by states; instead arguing that act intended only to limit removals based on diversity jurisdiction but not completely deny right for removals altogether.