Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Ward v. Love County

United States Supreme Court
253 U.S. 17 (1920)


Facts

Ward and 66 other members of the Choctaw Nation (plaintiffs) received land allotments in Oklahoma under an 1898 act of the United States Congress. The allotted land was to remain tax free for 21 years. In 1908, Congress removed the tax exemption and declared that the allotted land was subject to taxation. Officials of Love County, Oklahoma (the county) (defendant) then started to tax the land. In prior litigation, the plaintiffs and other allottees brought multiple suits in state court to enjoin the taxation. The United States Supreme Court ruled in those cases that the tax exemption was a vested property interest that Congress could not repeal. While the state suits were pending, Love County continued to tax the allotted properties. The county demanded that the taxes be paid and threatened to sell the land if the taxes were not paid. The county also had a local statute requiring an 18 percent penalty for late taxes. The county had advertised and sold other similarly situated property. The plaintiffs paid the taxes under protest to avoid the penalty and sale of their properties. Love County officials knew of the pending state litigation at the time of taxation. The county forwarded some of the collected taxes to other government agencies. The plaintiffs then sued the defendants in state district court to recover the paid taxes, alleging they were collected through coercion in violation of federal law. The state district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the judgment and held that the taxes were paid voluntarily and that there was no statutory authority to refund taxes voluntarily paid. The state supreme court also held that there was no authority to hold the county liable for taxes collected and turned over to other government agencies. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Van Devanter, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.