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

Stadelman Et Al. v. Miner Et Al.

• 1917 • 246 U.S. 544 • White Court
In the case of Stadelman et al. v. Miner et al., 1917, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide on a dispute over land ownership in Oregon. The plaintiffs, Stadelman and others, claimed that they had acquired title to certain lands under an Act of Congress from 1866 which granted rights-of-way for construction of highways over public lands not reserved for public use. However, before they could perfect their claim by building a highway as required by law, the defendants (Miner and others)...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: 644
246 U.S. 544
38 S. Ct. 359
62 L. Ed. 875
1918 U.S. LEXIS 1576

Stadelman Et Al. v. Miner Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Stadelman et al. v. Miner et al., 1917, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide on a dispute over land ownership in Oregon. The plaintiffs, Stadelman and others, claimed that they had acquired title to certain lands under an Act of Congress from 1866 which granted rights-of-way for construction of highways over public lands not reserved for public use. However, before they could perfect their claim by building a highway as required by law, the defendants (Miner and others) obtained patents from the government granting them ownership of these same lands under another Congressional Act passed in 1870 concerning railroad grants. The lower court ruled in favor of Miner and his associates stating that since they received their patent first it took precedence over any unperfected claims made by Stadelman's group under previous legislation. The Supreme Court upheld this decision affirming that once a patent has been issued it is conclusive against all prior or subsequent claimants who did not have perfected titles at time when such patent was issued; thus resolving conflicting interpretations between two different Acts passed by Congress regarding land grants.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Stadelman et al. v. Miner et al., Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold an Oregon law that prohibited employment agencies from charging fees to job seekers. He argued that this legislation was a violation of freedom of contract, which he believed should be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Holmes contended that while states have broad powers to regulate businesses in order to protect public welfare, these powers do not extend so far as to completely prohibit certain types of contracts unless there is clear evidence they are harmful or against public interest. In his view, no such harm had been demonstrated in this case and therefore it was unconstitutional for Oregon lawmakers to interfere with private contractual relationships between employment agencies and job seekers.

Opinion written by Justice LDBrandeis
Decided: Apr 15, 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