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

Omaechevarria v. State Of Idaho

• 1917 • 246 U.S. 343 • White Court
In the case of Omaechevarria v. State of Idaho in 1917, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving grazing rights on federal land. The plaintiff, Domingo Omaechevarria, was a sheep rancher who had been convicted under an Idaho state law that prohibited allowing livestock to graze on public lands without permission from the owner or custodian. He argued that his conviction violated his constitutional right to equal protection because cattle ranchers were not similarly prosecuted and also...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: 1917
Docket: 102
246 U.S. 343
38 S. Ct. 323
62 L. Ed. 763
1918 U.S. LEXIS 1555
Argued: Dec 20, 1917

Omaechevarria v. State Of Idaho

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Omaechevarria v. State of Idaho in 1917, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving grazing rights on federal land. The plaintiff, Domingo Omaechevarria, was a sheep rancher who had been convicted under an Idaho state law that prohibited allowing livestock to graze on public lands without permission from the owner or custodian. He argued that his conviction violated his constitutional right to equal protection because cattle ranchers were not similarly prosecuted and also claimed that only Congress could regulate use of federal lands. The Supreme Court upheld Omaechevarria's conviction by ruling against him. It held that while it is true Congress has exclusive authority over federal property, this does not prevent states from exercising their police powers in ways which might incidentally affect those properties. Furthermore, they found no violation of equal protection as there was no evidence showing unequal application of law between sheep and cattle ranchers; rather it reflected different impacts each type had on vegetation due to differences in feeding habits.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Omaechevarria v. State of Idaho, it was argued that the law in question, which prohibited sheep herding on open range land if it caused damage to cattle grazing lands, unfairly favored one industry over another without a rational basis. The justice contended that this legislation violated equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because there was no reasonable ground for distinguishing between harm done by sheep and harm done by other animals such as horses or swine. Furthermore, he pointed out that all livestock could potentially cause similar damage to public grazing lands and therefore should be treated equally under the law. He also disagreed with majority's interpretation of police power in this case; while acknowledging states' rights to enact laws protecting public health and safety, he believed these powers were being used unjustly here to discriminate against certain types of livestock owners.

Opinion written by Justice LDBrandeis
Decided: Mar 18, 1918
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