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

Lincoln County v. Luning was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1881. The case involved a dispute between Lincoln County, Nevada and the town of Luning, Nevada over the ownership of certain lands. The dispute arose when the town of Luning attempted to incorporate itself and claimed certain lands that were part of Lincoln County. Lincoln County argued that the lands were part of its territory and that the town of Luning had no right to incorporate itself and claim the lands. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Lincoln County, ruling that the town of Luning had no right to incorporate itself and claim the lands. The Court held that the lands were part of Lincoln County and that the town of Luning had no right to incorporate itself and claim the lands. The Court also held that the town of Luning had no right to tax the lands or to exercise any other governmental power over them. The Court's decision was based on the fact that the town of Luning had not been legally incorporated and that the lands were part of Lincoln County.
In the dissenting opinion of Lincoln County v. Luning, Justice Field argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of Nevada law and an incorrect application of federal constitutional principles. He argued that under Nevada state law, counties have no authority to levy taxes for county purposes unless specifically authorized by statute or charter provisions; therefore, he believed that Lincoln County did not have the power to impose a tax on Luning's property without such authorization from either statutory or charter sources. Furthermore, Justice Field asserted that even if it were assumed that Lincoln County had such authority under state law, its exercise would still be unconstitutional since it violated both due process and equal protection clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as other applicable federal laws. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded his dissent with a strong argument against allowing states to pass legislation which violates fundamental rights protected by federal statutes and constitutional amendments.