The U.S. Supreme Court case Devine v. Los Angeles in 1905 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the interpretation of Spanish land grants in California. The plaintiff, Devine, claimed that he had purchased part of Rancho San Pedro from Manuel Dominguez who was granted this property by the Mexican government before California became a state. However, the city of Los Angeles argued it owned this piece of land due to an earlier grant made by Spain to Juan Jose Dominguez (Manuel's predecessor). The court ruled in favor of Devine stating that when Mexico gained independence from Spain, it recognized all existing Spanish land grants including those not yet fully completed or confirmed under Spanish law at the time. Therefore, Manuel Dominguez’s title was valid and his sale to Devine legitimate.

In the dissenting opinion for Devine v. Los Angeles, the justice argued that the city of Los Angeles had no right to take over a private water company's infrastructure without providing just compensation. The justice believed that this action violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits government from taking private property for public use without fair payment. He contended that while cities have broad powers to regulate utilities in order to protect public health and safety, they cannot simply seize privately owned assets under guise of regulation or necessity. Furthermore, he stated that if such actions were allowed it would set a dangerous precedent where governments could arbitrarily confiscate any private property deemed necessary for public use with little regard for owners' rights or due process protections.