In the case of District of Columbia v. Talty, 1900, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Talty, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its previous owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant - District of Columbia - argued that they were rightful owners since they had taken possession after an unpaid tax sale years prior. The court ruled in favor of Talty stating that while there may have been some irregularities in his purchase process such as not having recorded his deed immediately upon acquisition or failing to pay taxes on time; these did not invalidate his claim to ownership because he could prove continuous possession and use for several years which established him as the legal owner under adverse possession laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of District of Columbia v. Talty argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation and application of law, particularly regarding the issue of taxation. The dissent emphasized that while it is within a government's power to tax for public purposes, this authority must be exercised fairly and equitably across all citizens. It was contended that the imposed water rent or tax on certain property owners by District authorities was discriminatory and unjust because it did not apply uniformly to all residents but only those who used city water services. This selective imposition violated principles of equal protection under law as guaranteed by constitutional provisions, according to the dissenters' view.