Gormley v. Clark was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1985. The case involved a dispute between two neighbors in the state of Washington. The plaintiff, Gormley, owned a piece of property that was adjacent to the defendant, Clark's, property. Gormley claimed that Clark had built a fence on Gormley's property without his permission. Gormley sued Clark for trespass and sought damages. The Supreme Court held that Gormley was entitled to damages for trespass. The Court found that Clark had built the fence without Gormley's permission and that Gormley had suffered a loss as a result. The Court also held that Gormley was entitled to an injunction preventing Clark from continuing to trespass on Gormley's property. The decision in Gormley v. Clark established that a property owner has the right to seek damages for trespass and an injunction to prevent further trespass. The case also established that a property owner can seek damages for any losses suffered as a result of the trespass. The decision in Gormley v. Clark has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving trespass and property rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Gormley v. Clark, Justice Stevens argued that the majority’s decision to reverse and remand was an inappropriate exercise of judicial power. He believed that the District Court had correctly applied Pennsylvania law in its ruling and should not have been overturned by a federal court. Furthermore, he noted that there were no constitutional issues at stake in this case which would justify such action from a higher court. In his view, it was unnecessary for the Supreme Court to intervene since state courts are better equipped to handle matters of local law than their federal counterparts. As such, Justice Stevens concluded that this case did not warrant any further review or intervention from the Supreme Court and urged them to affirm rather than reverse and remand as they ultimately decided on appeal.