In the 1910 case of Bean v. Morris, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a certain piece of land in Oregon belonged to John R. Bean or William Morris under the Homestead Act and Timber Culture laws respectively. The dispute arose when both parties claimed ownership over this tract of land; Bean had received a patent for it from the United States government while Morris argued that he had made improvements on it as required by law before Bean's patent was issued. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Morris, stating that his rights were vested prior to those of Mr.Bean due to his compliance with improvement requirements set forth by law even though he did not have an official title at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Bean v. Morris, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a state law that allowed corporations to avoid liability by claiming they were not in operation at the time of an accident. He argued that this interpretation was inconsistent with previous rulings and could lead to unjust outcomes. Specifically, he believed it would enable companies to evade responsibility for their actions simply by ceasing operations temporarily or transferring assets between different corporate entities. Furthermore, he contended that such practices contradicted fundamental principles of justice and fairness because they effectively shielded corporations from accountability while leaving injured parties without recourse. Therefore, Justice Harlan concluded that the court should have struck down the law as unconstitutional instead of upholding it.