In the case of Doran v. Kennedy, 1914, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and jurisdictional boundaries between states. The plaintiff, Doran, was an owner of land in Louisiana that extended into Mississippi due to changes in the course of the Mississippi River. He sued Kennedy for trespassing on this land which he claimed was still part of Louisiana despite being physically located within Mississippi's current borders. The court held that when a river forming a boundary between two states changes its course gradually by alluvial processes (deposition or erosion), it does not affect state lines; hence such lands remain under original jurisdiction - doctrine known as 'accretion'. However if change is sudden and identifiable ('avulsion'), then political boundaries do not shift with physical ones unless agreed upon by respective states or Congress intervenes. In this case since there wasn't clear evidence whether change happened through accretion or avulsion process, court remanded it back to lower courts for fact-finding before making final decision about ownership and jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Doran v. Kennedy, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a law that prohibited alcohol sales on election days. He argued that this law was an infringement upon personal liberty and did not serve any legitimate public interest. Holmes believed that it was not within the state's power to regulate such behavior unless there was a clear connection between alcohol consumption and disruption of elections, which he felt had not been adequately demonstrated in this case. Furthermore, he contended that even if such a connection existed, banning all sales of alcohol on election day would be an overly broad response when more targeted measures could achieve the same goal without infringing as much on individual rights.