Norman v. Buckner was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1981. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property in the state of Georgia. The plaintiff, Norman, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, Buckner, in a private sale. Buckner, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received the full purchase price. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Norman, ruling that the sale was valid and that Norman was the rightful owner of the property. The Court held that Buckner had failed to prove that he had not received the full purchase price, and that Norman had acted in good faith in making the purchase. The Court also noted that Buckner had failed to take any action to protect his rights in the property prior to the sale. The decision in Norman v. Buckner established that a private sale of property is valid and binding, even if the seller does not receive the full purchase price. It also established that the seller must take action to protect their rights in the property prior to the sale in order to challenge the validity of the sale.

In the case of Norman v. Buckner, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. He stated that the Court had failed to consider all relevant factors when deciding whether or not an individual could be held liable for a crime committed by another person under their supervision. Specifically, he noted that while it is true that individuals can be held responsible for crimes committed by those they are supervising if there is evidence of negligence on their part, this does not mean they must always bear responsibility regardless of any mitigating circumstances present at the time of commission. Furthermore, Marshall argued that even if some degree of fault could be attributed to Norman in this particular case, it did not necessarily follow from this fact alone that she should automatically face criminal liability as well; rather than making such a sweeping judgment without considering other important facts about her situation and character at the time would constitute an unjust result and thus violate due process rights guaranteed by law.