Bullitt County v. Washer is a Supreme Court case from the year 2000. The case involved a dispute between Bullitt County, Kentucky and the Washer family over the ownership of a piece of land. The Washer family had owned the land since the early 1800s, but Bullitt County claimed that the land had been abandoned and that they had acquired it through adverse possession. The Washers argued that they had never abandoned the land and that Bullitt County had no right to it. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Washers, ruling that Bullitt County had not acquired the land through adverse possession. The Court held that the Washers had not abandoned the land and that Bullitt County had not met the requirements for adverse possession. The Court also noted that the Washers had continued to pay taxes on the land and had made improvements to it, which showed that they had not abandoned it. As a result, the Court ruled that the Washers were the rightful owners of the land.

In the Supreme Court case of Bullitt County v. Washer, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's interpretation of Kentucky law was incorrect and should not be adopted by the court. He noted that under Kentucky law, a county is only liable for damages caused by its negligence if it has been given notice of an impending danger or hazard and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent harm from occurring. In this case, there was no evidence presented that Bullitt County had received any such notice prior to the accident at issue; thus, according to Scalia’s reading of state law, they could not be held liable for damages resulting from their alleged negligence. Furthermore, he argued that even if they had received some kind of warning about potential dangers on their property before the incident occurred—which again there was no evidence presented suggesting as much—the county still would have been able to avoid liability since it took reasonable steps after receiving said warning in order to protect against potential hazards on its land. Ultimately then, Justice Scalia concluded his dissent with a call for further clarification regarding what constitutes “reasonable steps” taken by counties when faced with warnings about possible dangers on their property so as better inform future decisions made within similar cases going forward.