In the case of Beaupre v. Noyes (1890), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Minnesota. The plaintiff, Beaupre, claimed that he had purchased the disputed property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, Noyes argued that he had acquired title to the same property through adverse possession as he had been occupying and using it for several years without any objection from anyone including Beaupre or previous owners. Adverse possession is a doctrine under which a person in possession of land owned by someone else may acquire valid title to it if certain common law requirements are met. The court ruled in favor of Noyes stating that his uninterrupted use and occupation of the land for more than 15 years constituted adverse possession thereby giving him legal rights over said property even though there was no formal deed transferring ownership rights from previous owner(s) to him.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Beaupre v. Noyes argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that an individual could not be prosecuted for perjury if they were compelled to testify under a grant of immunity, was incorrect. The dissent contended that this interpretation undermined the purpose and intent of laws granting immunity from prosecution. They believed such laws are meant to protect individuals from being forced into self-incrimination, not shield them entirely from legal consequences should they choose to lie under oath. This view maintained that by allowing someone who has lied on stand after receiving immunity to avoid punishment for perjury undermines both the justice system and public trust in it.