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

Moss v. Ramey

• 1915 • 239 U.S. 538 • White Court
In the case of Moss v. Ramey in 1915, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Moss, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had received it as part of a government grant. However, this was disputed by Ramey who argued that the original grantee did not have legal title to sell because they were not citizens at the time they received it and therefore could not legally own land under federal law. The court ruled in...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: 1915
Docket: 61
239 U.S. 538
36 S. Ct. 183
60 L. Ed. 425
1916 U.S. LEXIS 1928
Argued: Dec 09, 1915

Moss v. Ramey

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Moss v. Ramey in 1915, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Moss, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had received it as part of a government grant. However, this was disputed by Ramey who argued that the original grantee did not have legal title to sell because they were not citizens at the time they received it and therefore could not legally own land under federal law. The court ruled in favor of Ramey stating that non-citizens cannot acquire valid titles to public lands unless there is explicit statutory authority permitting them to do so.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The Moss v. Ramey case does not appear to have a recorded dissenting opinion available for summarization. The case, which took place in 1915, involved the issue of whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused by their livestock wandering onto another person's property. However, specific details about any dissenting opinions are not readily accessible in public records or legal databases. It is possible that this particular Supreme Court case was decided unanimously and therefore did not feature a dissenting opinion from any of the justices.

Opinion written by Justice WVanDevanter
Decided: Jan 10, 1916
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