Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Delamater v. South Dakota

• 1906 • 205 U.S. 93 • Fuller Court
In the 1906 case of Delamater v. South Dakota, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota regarding a dispute over taxation on railroad property owned by non-residents. The plaintiff, Delamater, was a New York resident who owned shares in several railroads operating within South Dakota and argued that his property should not be subject to state taxes as he was not a resident there. However, the court held that states have jurisdiction to tax personal property located within their...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1906
Docket: 149
205 U.S. 93
27 S. Ct. 447
51 L. Ed. 724
1907 U.S. LEXIS 1437
Argued: Jan 10, 1907

Delamater v. South Dakota

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1906 case of Delamater v. South Dakota, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota regarding a dispute over taxation on railroad property owned by non-residents. The plaintiff, Delamater, was a New York resident who owned shares in several railroads operating within South Dakota and argued that his property should not be subject to state taxes as he was not a resident there. However, the court held that states have jurisdiction to tax personal property located within their borders regardless of where the owner resides. This decision upheld principles established earlier in Pullman's Palace Car Co v Pennsylvania (1891), which stated that tangible personal properties are taxable at their situs or location rather than at owner’s domicile.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Delamater v. South Dakota, it was argued that the state of South Dakota did not have jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in this case. The dissenting justices believed that due process rights were violated because the defendant had no real connection to or presence in South Dakota and therefore should not be subject to its laws and courts. They contended that serving notice outside of a state's borders does not provide sufficient grounds for personal jurisdiction unless there is some meaningful contact with the state by the defendant. This interpretation would uphold individual liberty against arbitrary power, which they saw as fundamental to American constitutional law.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Mar 11, 1907
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms