In the case of Fitz Gerald v. Thompson, 1911, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Fitz Gerald claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through adverse possession - a doctrine under which a person in possession of land owned by someone else may acquire valid title to it if certain conditions are met such as open and notorious use for an extended period of time. However, the defendant Thompson argued that this claim was invalid because the original owner had only been leasing out his property rather than abandoning it entirely. The court ruled in favor of Thompson stating that mere occupation or use is not enough to establish adverse possession unless there is also clear evidence showing intent to hold and possess against all others including true owners. It further clarified that even though some parts were used by Fitzgerald without any objection from anyone during many years, other portions remained unoccupied hence could not be considered adversely possessed. This decision reinforced legal principles regarding adverse possession emphasizing on requirement for continuous exclusive occupancy along with hostile intention towards real owner's rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Fitz Gerald v. Thompson, the justice argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and legal principles regarding property rights. The dissenting justice believed that a landowner should have full control over their property, including any minerals found beneath it. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "mineral" in this case to include oil and gas, arguing instead that these substances are distinct from solid minerals like coal or iron ore due to their fluid nature which allows them to migrate across property lines naturally. Therefore, he contended they should not be subject to traditional rules about mineral rights but rather governed by different laws reflecting their unique characteristics. Furthermore, he criticized the court for failing to consider relevant state law on this issue and ignoring established precedent supporting his view.