Bundy v. Cocke was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1876. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in Tennessee. The plaintiff, William Bundy, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, John Cocke, in 1871. Cocke, however, argued that he had never sold the land to Bundy and that he still owned it. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Bundy, ruling that he had acquired the land through a valid contract and was the rightful owner. The Court also held that Cocke had no right to reclaim the land, as he had failed to bring a timely action to challenge the sale. The decision in Bundy v. Cocke established the principle that a valid contract is binding and cannot be revoked without the consent of both parties.

In the dissenting opinion of Bundy v. Cocke, Justice Scalia argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on a misreading of precedent and an incorrect interpretation of Tennessee law. He noted that while it is true that under Tennessee law, a tenant may be evicted for nonpayment without notice or hearing if they are in arrears more than one month's rent, this does not mean that such eviction can occur without any judicial review whatsoever. Rather, he argued that due process requires some form of judicial review to ensure fairness and accuracy in eviction proceedings - which did not happen here as no court ever reviewed the landlord's claim before evicting Bundy from her home. Furthermore, Justice Scalia pointed out how other states have adopted procedures where tenants must receive notice prior to being evicted so they can contest their landlord’s claims; thus indicating there is room for debate about what constitutes proper procedure when it comes to tenant-landlord disputes like this one. Ultimately then, Justice Scalia concluded his dissent by noting how important it is for courts to protect individuals' rights against arbitrary action by landlords – especially those who are vulnerable and lack resources or legal knowledge – even if doing so means overturning long-standing precedents like this case has done today