In the 1913 case of El Paso Brick Company v. John H. McKnight, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The El Paso Brick Company claimed that it had acquired title to certain lands through adverse possession, which is a doctrine that allows someone who has been occupying or using another's property for an extended period of time without challenge from the owner to claim legal ownership of that property. However, John H. McKnight disputed this claim and argued he was the rightful owner as he inherited it from his father who bought it in 1857 before any alleged occupation by El Paso Brick Company began. The court ruled against El Paso Brick Company stating they failed to establish their claim because there was no evidence showing continuous and uninterrupted use necessary for adverse possession under Texas law at that time - ten years' worth of such usage being required then.

In the dissenting opinion for El Paso Brick Company v. John H. McKnight, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a judgment against El Paso Brick Company based on an alleged violation of antitrust laws was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented in court to prove that the company had engaged in any form of price-fixing or monopolistic practices as accused by McKnight. They contended that merely showing parallel pricing among competitors isn't enough proof of collusion or conspiracy, and such could be due to market forces rather than illegal agreements between companies. Furthermore, they disagreed with the interpretation and application of antitrust laws by lower courts and felt these were overly broad, potentially stifering healthy competition instead of promoting it as intended by law.