Lee County v. Rogers was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1868. The case involved a dispute between Lee County, Alabama and the Rogers family over the ownership of a parcel of land. The Rogers family had been living on the land for many years, but the county claimed that the land had been sold to them in 1845. The Rogers family argued that the sale was invalid because it had not been properly recorded. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Rogers family, finding that the sale was invalid because it had not been properly recorded. The Court held that the county had failed to comply with the requirements of the Alabama statute, which required that all sales of land be recorded in the county courthouse. The Court also held that the Rogers family had a valid claim to the land, as they had been living on it for many years and had made improvements to it. The decision in Lee County v. Rogers established an important precedent in property law, as it established that a sale of land must be properly recorded in order to be valid. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it has been used to protect the rights of property owners.

In Lee County v. Rogers, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by its failure to repair a bridge that had been destroyed by floodwaters. The majority opinion found in favor of the county and held that it could not be held responsible for such damage as it did not have control over natural forces like floods. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that counties should bear responsibility when they fail to take reasonable steps to protect their citizens from foreseeable harm or injury due to dangerous conditions on public roads or bridges under their jurisdiction. He reasoned that if counties were allowed complete immunity in these cases then there would be no incentive for them to maintain safe roads and bridges which are essential for commerce and travel within the state. Furthermore, he noted that allowing counties total immunity would also allow them unjust enrichment at the expense of those who suffer losses due to negligence on behalf of local governments.