Richardson v. Green was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1974. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property in the state of Georgia. The plaintiff, Richardson, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, Green, in a private sale. Green, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received any money for the property. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Richardson, ruling that the sale was valid and that Richardson was the rightful owner of the property. The Court reasoned that the sale was valid because it was a private sale, and that Green had not provided any evidence that he had not received any money for the property. The Court also noted that Richardson had taken possession of the property and had made improvements to it, which further supported his claim of ownership. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Richardson, affirming his ownership of the property. The decision established that private sales are valid and that the buyer does not need to provide evidence of payment in order to prove ownership.

In the dissenting opinion of Richardson v. Green, Justice White argued that the majority’s decision to reverse and remand was wrong because it failed to consider the fact that a state court had already found in favor of Richardson on his claim for damages due to an illegal search and seizure by police officers. He noted that this finding should be given full faith and credit under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S Constitution which requires states to give each other's judgments respect as if they were rendered in their own courts. Furthermore, he argued that even if there was some doubt about whether or not a federal court could review such a judgment from another state court, it would still be inappropriate for them to do so without first giving deference to those findings made by the lower court since they are presumed correct until proven otherwise. As such, Justice White concluded that reversing and remanding this case back down for further proceedings was unnecessary since all relevant facts had already been established in prior litigation between these parties before any appeal took place at Supreme Court level.