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

The Supreme Court case of Gregg vs. Tesson involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of certain land in Missouri. The plaintiff, John Gregg, claimed that he had purchased the land from one William B. Tesson and his wife in 1853 for $1,000 but was never given title to it because they failed to record the deed with local authorities as required by law. The defendant argued that he had acquired title to the property through adverse possession and therefore should be awarded legal ownership of it instead. In its decision, the court held that while adverse possession could indeed transfer title under certain circumstances, this particular situation did not meet those requirements since there was no evidence showing any actual or visible occupancy on behalf of Mr. Tesson prior to Mr. Gregg's purchase; thus making him legally entitled to own said property despite failing to record his deed properly at first instance
In Gregg v. Tesson, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state law which prohibited African Americans from testifying in court against white persons was unconstitutional. The majority opinion argued that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus could not be enforced. Justice Curtis dissented, arguing that while he agreed with much of what had been said by his colleagues on the bench, he felt it necessary to point out some flaws in their reasoning. He noted that Congress did not intend for all laws to be subject to judicial review under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; rather they were intended only for those laws which specifically targeted African Americans or other minority groups as opposed to general legislation applicable across racial lines. Furthermore, Justice Curtis argued that even if such a law was found unconstitutional due to its discriminatory nature, it would still have been within Congress' power at common law prior to adoption of Section 1 and therefore should remain valid until repealed by legislative action instead of being struck down by judicial decree.