ER Sturr v. Becker was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1935. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of real estate in Wisconsin. The plaintiff, Sturr, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, Becker, in 1929. Becker, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received full payment for the property. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Sturr, ruling that the sale was valid and that Sturr was the rightful owner of the property. The Court held that Becker had received full payment for the property and that the sale was therefore valid. The Court also noted that Becker had failed to take any action to challenge the sale within the statute of limitations, which had expired. The decision in Sturr v. Becker established that a sale of real estate is valid if the seller has received full payment for the property and the buyer has taken possession of the property. The decision also established that a seller must take action to challenge a sale within the statute of limitations in order to be successful in a legal dispute.

ER In the case of Sturr v. Becker, Justice Black delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He believed that Congress had no authority to pass legislation prohibiting certain types of speech or expression, as it did with this law. Furthermore, he argued that even if such laws were permissible under some circumstances, they should not be used to prevent people from expressing their religious beliefs or opinions on matters of public concern. He concluded by stating that although there may be times when government intervention is necessary for public safety and order, this particular instance did not meet those criteria and thus should have been struck down as unconstitutional.