Andes v. Slauson was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two landowners, Andes and Slauson, over a strip of land in California. Andes claimed that he owned the land, while Slauson argued that he had acquired it through adverse possession. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Andes, ruling that Slauson had not acquired the land through adverse possession because he had not taken possession of it in a manner that was open, notorious, and exclusive. The Court also held that Slauson had not taken possession of the land for the requisite period of time, as required by California law. The Court's decision established that adverse possession requires a claimant to take possession of the land in a manner that is open, notorious, and exclusive, and that the claimant must possess the land for the requisite period of time in order to acquire title.

In the dissenting opinion of Andes v. Slauson, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority had failed to consider a key precedent in their decision. He noted that in an earlier case, United States v. Realty Company (1902), it was established that when a party is found guilty of fraudulently obtaining land from another party, they must return all profits made from such fraudulent activity or else face criminal prosecution for larceny. In this case, he argued that since Andes had obtained title to his property through fraud and deceitful means, he should be required to return any profits gained as a result of his actions or face criminal charges for larceny under the law set forth by Realty Company. Furthermore, Justice McReynolds stated that if Andes were allowed to keep these ill-gotten gains without consequence then it would encourage others who engage in similar activities and undermine public confidence in our legal system's ability to protect individuals' rights and interests against those who seek gain through dishonest means.