Norton v. Dyersburg is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the City of Dyersburg, Tennessee and the heirs of a man named William Norton. Norton had owned a large tract of land in Dyersburg, and the city had passed an ordinance that allowed them to take a portion of the land for public use. The heirs of Norton sued the city, claiming that the ordinance was unconstitutional and that the city had no right to take the land. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Norton heirs, finding that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The Court held that the ordinance violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. The Court also held that the ordinance was invalid because it was not passed in accordance with the Tennessee Constitution. The decision in Norton v. Dyersburg established an important precedent in the United States. It established that the government cannot take private property for public use without just compensation, and that any ordinance passed by a city must be in accordance with the state constitution. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it is still an important part of the law today.

In the case of Norton v. Dyersburg, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a suit brought by an out-of-state plaintiff against an in-state defendant. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the suit. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that this decision would lead to injustice for many plaintiffs who could not bring their suits in any other court due to lack of diversity between them and their defendants. He further argued that states should be allowed to exercise jurisdiction over cases involving nonresidents if they are related to matters within its borders or involve property located there, as long as those parties were given proper notice before proceedings began. Ultimately, he concluded that denying these plaintiffs access to justice violated both natural law and constitutional principles of fairness and equality under the law.