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

Mullen v. United States

• 1911 • 224 U.S. 448 • White Court
In Mullen v. United States (1911), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving land fraud in Oregon. The defendant, John A. Benson, was accused of conspiring to defraud the government by filing false claims for public lands under the Timber and Stone Act of 1878, which allowed private citizens to purchase federal lands that were "unfit for cultivation" and valuable mainly for timber or stone at a low price. Benson had allegedly paid individuals to pose as claimants who would then transfer...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: 404
224 U.S. 448
32 S. Ct. 494
56 L. Ed. 834
1912 U.S. LEXIS 2312
Argued: Oct 12, 1911

Mullen v. United States

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Mullen v. United States (1911), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving land fraud in Oregon. The defendant, John A. Benson, was accused of conspiring to defraud the government by filing false claims for public lands under the Timber and Stone Act of 1878, which allowed private citizens to purchase federal lands that were "unfit for cultivation" and valuable mainly for timber or stone at a low price. Benson had allegedly paid individuals to pose as claimants who would then transfer their rights over these parcels of land back to him after obtaining them from the government. The main issue before the court was whether an indictment alleging conspiracy needed specific allegations about how each co-conspirator committed fraudulent acts against the government or if it sufficed merely to allege that they conspired together with intent to defraud without detailing individual actions. The Supreme Court held that while it is necessary in indictments charging conspiracy under general statutes requiring overt act by one or more parties involved, such requirement does not apply when dealing with cases like this where statute itself makes unlawful any agreement entered into with intent specified therein regardless of any subsequent action taken towards its accomplishment.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Mullen v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens. He contended that such actions by law enforcement officials were not only unconstitutional but also threatened individual liberties. The justice emphasized that any evidence procured illegally should be deemed inadmissible in court as it sets a dangerous precedent where constitutional protections could be easily disregarded under the guise of criminal investigation. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential abuses by authorities if they are allowed to violate personal privacy without repercussions or checks on their power.

Opinion written by Justice CEHughes(1)
Decided: Apr 15, 1912
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