GEILINGER v. PHILIPPI was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1979. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, Geilinger, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Philippi, in 1876. Philippi, however, argued that the deed was invalid because it had not been properly recorded. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Geilinger, ruling that the deed was valid and that Geilinger was the rightful owner of the land. The Court held that the deed was valid because it had been delivered to Geilinger and accepted by him, and that the failure to record the deed did not invalidate it. The Court also held that the statute of limitations had expired, meaning that Philippi could no longer challenge the validity of the deed. This case established an important precedent in Pennsylvania law, as it established that a deed can be valid even if it is not recorded. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to protect the rights of property owners in Pennsylvania.

In the Supreme Court case of Geilingerv. Philippi, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be overturned. He believed that the court had misinterpreted precedent when it held that an individual could bring a claim for damages under Section 1983 even if they were not personally injured by state action. According to Scalia, this interpretation would expand Section 1983 beyond its intended scope and allow individuals to sue states without any personal injury or connection between them and the state actor. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such claims would open up states to liability for actions taken by their employees with no real control over those employees' conduct. In conclusion, Justice Scalia felt strongly that allowing these types of suits against states would create too much uncertainty in terms of what kind of behavior is permissible on behalf of government actors while also creating potential financial burdens on already cash-strapped governments due to increased litigation costs associated with defending these cases.