The U.S. Supreme Court case Boston & Maine Railroad v. Piper in 1917 revolved around a dispute between the railroad company and an individual named Piper over land ownership rights. The railroad claimed that it had acquired the disputed property through adverse possession, which is a doctrine allowing someone to gain legal title to a property if they openly inhabit and improve it for an extended period of time without protest from the original owner. However, Piper argued that he was the rightful owner as he inherited it from his father who had purchased it legally years ago but never occupied or improved upon it due to its marshy nature making cultivation impossible. The court ruled in favor of Boston & Maine Railroad stating that although typically non-use by an owner would not constitute abandonment, this case was different because there were no improvements made on such lands nor any taxes paid on them for more than twenty years by Piper's father or himself after inheriting them; thus constituting neglect and abandonment under New Hampshire law where this issue arose.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Boston & Maine Railroad v. Piper argued that the court majority erred in its decision to uphold a state law allowing damages for mental distress caused by negligence, even when no physical injury occurred. The dissenters believed this ruling expanded liability too far and could lead to frivolous lawsuits based on subjective claims of emotional harm. They contended that without an objective standard like physical injury, it would be difficult for courts to fairly adjudicate these cases and prevent abuse of the legal system. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on businesses due to increased litigation costs and uncertainty over potential liabilities.