In the District of Columbia v. Moulton case in 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and property rights. The plaintiff, Moulton, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from the government which were later taken by the District of Columbia for public use without compensation. He argued this was a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights which protect against seizure of private property for public use without just compensation (eminent domain). However, it was revealed that at the time when these lands were allegedly bought by Moulton, they had already been dedicated to public use as part of an avenue under an act passed by Congress years before his purchase. Therefore, no valid title could have been conveyed to him or any other purchaser after such dedication unless there was explicit legislation authorizing it. As such legislation did not exist in this case; thus rendering Moulton's claim invalid and ruling in favor of District Of Columbia.

The dissenting opinion in the case of District of Columbia v. Moulton argued that the court majority had erred in their interpretation and application of law, particularly regarding property rights. The dissent emphasized that Mr. Moulton's land was taken without proper compensation, which violated his Fifth Amendment rights to due process and just compensation for private property taken for public use. They contended that the valuation placed on his land by a jury should have been upheld as it represented fair market value at the time of taking rather than when proceedings began years earlier. Furthermore, they disagreed with how interest was calculated on this amount - arguing it should be from date of taking until payment is made to truly compensate him for loss suffered during delay caused by litigation initiated by government itself.