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

Weber v. Rogan

• 1902 • 188 U.S. 10 • Fuller Court
In the case of Weber v. Rogan, 1902, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Weber, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one Mr. Pioche back in 1863 and subsequently sold it to another party who later defaulted on their payments leading to repossession by Weber. However, during this time period (1870-1891), taxes were not paid on the property and it was sold for tax delinquency to Rogan who then sought possession...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 Fuller Court
Term: 1902
Docket: 107
188 U.S. 10
23 S. Ct. 263
47 L. Ed. 363
1903 U.S. LEXIS 1265

Weber v. Rogan

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Weber v. Rogan, 1902, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Weber, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one Mr. Pioche back in 1863 and subsequently sold it to another party who later defaulted on their payments leading to repossession by Weber. However, during this time period (1870-1891), taxes were not paid on the property and it was sold for tax delinquency to Rogan who then sought possession of said land. The court ruled against Weber stating that his claim lacked validity as there was no record or evidence proving his original purchase from Pioche nor any documentation showing transfer or sale to another party before repossession due to defaulting payment terms. Furthermore, even if such proof existed but wasn't recorded according to law at the time when required (within one year after execution), it would still be considered void against any subsequent purchaser like Rogan for valuable consideration without notice thereof. Therefore based on these findings and interpretations of existing laws regarding real estate transactions and taxation procedures at that time; Justice Peckham delivered an opinion affirming judgment favoring defendant - Rogan.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the Weber v. Rogan case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing for property seizure without due process was unconstitutional. The dissent emphasized that this ruling violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees every citizen equal protection under the law and prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process. They contended that seizing someone's property based on an unproven debt claim is inherently unjust and undermines fundamental principles of fairness and justice enshrined in American constitutional law. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “due process,” arguing it should include both notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation occurs – elements absent in this case.

Opinion written by Justice HBBrown
Decided: Jan 19, 1903
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