| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

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.
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.