In the case of Barnett v. Denison (1891), the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Barnett, claimed that he had purchased a parcel of land from an individual who had received it as part of a Mexican grant before Texas became part of the U.S., and thus his claim was valid under international law. However, defendant Denison argued that this same parcel was included in lands later granted to him by the state government after annexation. The court held for Denison, ruling that when Texas joined the Union it retained control over its public lands and could distribute them as it saw fit; therefore any previous claims to those lands were nullified upon annexation unless specifically recognized by treaty or statute.

The dissenting opinion in the Barnett v. Denison case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant statutes. The dissent believed that the law clearly stated that a person could only be held liable for damages if they were directly responsible for causing those damages. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that Mr. Barnett had caused any harm or damage through his actions, therefore he should not have been held liable. Furthermore, the dissent argued against imposing liability on individuals based solely on their status as owners of property where an accident occurred without proof of negligence or wrongful conduct on their part.