In the Dashiell v. Grosvenor case of 1895, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute involving land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Mrs. Dashiell claimed that she had rightful ownership to a piece of property based on an old English law known as "adverse possession," which allows someone who has occupied and maintained a property for a certain period without being challenged by the legal owner to claim title to it. However, her claim was disputed by Mr. Grosvenor who argued that he held valid title deeds for this same piece of land. The court ruled in favor of Mr.Grosvenor stating that adverse possession could not be applied since Mrs.Dashiell's occupation and use of the land were not exclusive or continuous as required under this doctrine; there were periods when others also used or occupied parts of it without her objection. Furthermore, they noted that even if these conditions had been met, adverse possession would still not apply because Washington DC laws did not recognize such claims against government-owned lands (which included this particular plot). Thus reaffirming respect for documented titles over long-term occupancy.

In the dissenting opinion for Dashiell v. Grosvenor, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Mrs. Dashiell was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Mrs. Dashiell had not been given an adequate opportunity to present her case and defend her rights in court before judgment was passed on her claim to certain property and funds left by Mr. Grosvenor, who she claimed promised them as compensation for services rendered during his lifetime but failed to include such provision in his will or any legal document prior to his death. They contended that this failure of due process violated fundamental principles of justice and fairness under U.S law.