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

Martin v. West

• 1911 • 222 U.S. 191 • White Court
In the 1911 case of Martin v. West, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Martin, claimed that he had purchased the land from an individual who had received it as part of a government allotment to members of certain Native American tribes. However, under federal law at that time, such lands could not be sold or transferred for a period of 25 years after their initial allocation without presidential approval - which was not obtained...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 White Court
Term: 1911
Docket: 33
222 U.S. 191
32 S. Ct. 42
56 L. Ed. 159
1911 U.S. LEXIS 1773
Argued: Nov 02, 1911

Martin v. West

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1911 case of Martin v. West, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Martin, claimed that he had purchased the land from an individual who had received it as part of a government allotment to members of certain Native American tribes. However, under federal law at that time, such lands could not be sold or transferred for a period of 25 years after their initial allocation without presidential approval - which was not obtained in this case. The defendant West argued that because the original sale was illegal due to lack of presidential consent and thus voided any subsequent sales including Martin's purchase; therefore he should retain possession since his claim came through another line entirely independent from said invalid transaction. The court ruled in favor of West stating that even though there were no restrictions on alienation mentioned in the patent issued by President Roosevelt when transferring title to these lands (which would normally imply unrestricted transferability), Congress' intent regarding restrictions on alienation was clear and must be respected regardless if they weren't explicitly stated within each individual patent document itself.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Martin v. West, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting non-residents from hunting in Louisiana unless accompanied by a guide was an unconstitutional violation of interstate commerce rights. The dissent contended that such laws were discriminatory and protectionist in nature, serving only to protect local interests at the expense of out-of-state citizens' constitutional right to engage freely in trade and commerce across state lines. They believed this ruling set a dangerous precedent for states imposing arbitrary restrictions on non-residents under the guise of conservation or other seemingly legitimate purposes, which could potentially lead to widespread discrimination against out-of-state individuals engaging in lawful activities within any given state’s borders.

Opinion written by Justice WVanDevanter
Decided: Dec 04, 1911
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