Otoe County v. Baldwin was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The case arose when a man named Baldwin was injured while crossing a bridge in Otoe County, Nebraska. Baldwin sued the county for damages, claiming that the bridge was in a state of disrepair and that the county was negligent in maintaining it. The Supreme Court held that the county could be held liable for damages caused by the bridge. The Court reasoned that the county had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition, and that it had breached that duty by failing to do so. The Court also held that the county was liable for Baldwin's injuries, even though the county had not been aware of the bridge's condition prior to the accident. The Court's decision in Otoe County v. Baldwin established that counties can be held liable for damages caused by defective bridges. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it has been used to support the idea that counties have a duty to maintain public infrastructure in a safe condition.

In Otoe County v. Baldwin, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a county in Nebraska could collect taxes from an Indian tribe living on its land. The majority opinion held that the county had no authority to do so because of treaties between the United States and the tribe which guaranteed them immunity from taxation by state or local governments. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that while it was true that tribes were exempt from certain kinds of taxation, this exemption did not extend to all forms of taxation imposed by states or counties. He further argued that if such exemptions were allowed without limitation then they would be tantamount to granting Indians sovereignty over their own lands within a state's jurisdiction - something he believed Congress never intended when making these treaties with Native American tribes.