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

Potter, Appellant, v. Gardner And Others, Respondents

1827 • 25 U.S. 498 • Marshall Court
In the case of Potter v. Gardner and Others, appellant Potter brought a suit against respondents Gardner and others for trespass on his land. The court found that the defendants had wrongfully entered onto Potter's property without permission or authority from him, thus constituting an act of trespass. In addition to this finding, the court also determined that even if there was no actual entry onto the land by any of the defendants, they were still liable for damages due to their involvement...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 Marshall Court
Term: 1827
25 U.S. 498
6 L. Ed. 706
1827 U.S. LEXIS 402
Argued: Feb 01, 1827

Potter, Appellant, v. Gardner And Others, Respondents

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Potter v. Gardner and Others, appellant Potter brought a suit against respondents Gardner and others for trespass on his land. The court found that the defendants had wrongfully entered onto Potter's property without permission or authority from him, thus constituting an act of trespass. In addition to this finding, the court also determined that even if there was no actual entry onto the land by any of the defendants, they were still liable for damages due to their involvement in causing it to be done through another party. Ultimately, as a result of these findings by the Supreme Court, all parties involved were held responsible for their actions and ordered to pay damages accordingly.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In this case, Potter appealed a decision of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia which held that he was not entitled to recover damages from Gardner and others. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, but Justice Story dissented. He argued that Potter had been wrongfully deprived of his property by Gardner and others without due process or just compensation in violation of both natural justice and constitutional law. Furthermore, he noted that if such acts were allowed to go unpunished it would encourage similar violations in future cases. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that Potter should have been awarded damages as a result of his loss since there was no legal justification for depriving him of his property rights without proper compensation or due process under either natural justice or constitutional law.

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