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

Hazelton v. Sheckells

• 1905 • 202 U.S. 71 • Fuller Court
In the case of Hazelton v. Sheckells in 1905, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding land ownership and mining rights in Nevada. The plaintiff, Hazelton, claimed that he had purchased mining property from an individual who had obtained it through a sheriff's sale after winning a judgment against its previous owner. However, the defendant, Sheckells argued that this was not valid as there were procedural errors during the sheriff's sale which made it invalid under Nevada...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: 1905
Docket: 225
202 U.S. 71
26 S. Ct. 567
50 L. Ed. 939
1906 U.S. LEXIS 1520
Argued: Apr 21, 1906

Hazelton v. Sheckells

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Hazelton v. Sheckells in 1905, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding land ownership and mining rights in Nevada. The plaintiff, Hazelton, claimed that he had purchased mining property from an individual who had obtained it through a sheriff's sale after winning a judgment against its previous owner. However, the defendant, Sheckells argued that this was not valid as there were procedural errors during the sheriff's sale which made it invalid under Nevada law. The court sided with Sheckells and held that since proper procedures were not followed during the sheriff’s sale (including failure to provide public notice), title did not pass to Hazelton when he bought it from his predecessor-in-interest who acquired it at said flawed auction.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Hazelton v. Sheckells, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Maryland law taxing out-of-state corporations doing business within its borders violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that this tax placed an unfair burden on interstate commerce and discriminated against non-Maryland businesses by treating them differently from in-state companies. They contended that such discrimination could potentially lead to economic retaliation from other states, thereby disrupting national unity and harmony among states. Furthermore, they asserted that while states have broad powers to levy taxes, these powers should not be used as a means of protectionism or favoritism towards local industries at the expense of out-of-state competitors.

Opinion written by Justice OWHolmes
Decided: Apr 23, 1906
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