In the 1906 case of Crane v. Buckley, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Crane, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from someone who had acquired it through adverse possession (a method by which one can gain legal title to another's real estate by openly occupying it for an extended period). However, the defendant, Buckley argued that they were still legally entitled to this property because their original grantor never lost his rights due to insufficient notice about the adverse possession claim. The court ruled in favor of Buckley and held that mere occupancy or use of another’s land is not sufficient enough evidence for acquiring title via adverse possession unless there is clear indication or notification given to the actual owner regarding such occupation or usage intent within statutory time limits.

In the dissenting opinion for Crane v. Buckley, 1906, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on billiard tables owned by private clubs infringed upon property rights and exceeded the state's taxing power. The dissenting justices believed this tax was not justifiable as an exercise of police powers because owning a billiard table did not pose any harm or threat to public welfare. They also contended that if states could impose taxes on items like billiard tables under such pretenses, they would essentially have unlimited authority to levy taxes on any form of personal property without restriction. This view held that such broad taxation powers were inconsistent with principles of limited government and individual liberty enshrined in constitutional law.