In the 1902 case of Gordon v. Randle, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Gordon, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Randle, argued that they were actually the rightful owner because they had been living on and using the property for many years without any objection from anyone else - a legal concept known as "adverse possession". The lower courts sided with Randle but upon appeal to Supreme Court by Gordon; it reversed this decision stating that under Texas law at least five years must pass before someone can claim adverse possession and since there was no evidence presented showing how long exactly Randle has been occupying said property or if his occupancy met all other requirements for claiming adverse possession under state law; hence remanded back to lower court for further proceedings.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Gordon v. Randle argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly consider and apply relevant legal principles. The dissent pointed out that while a person may be held liable for damages caused by their negligence, they should not be held responsible if they were unaware of any potential danger or risk. In this case, Mr. Gordon had no reason to believe his horse would cause harm since there was no evidence suggesting the animal was dangerous or prone to violent behavior prior to the incident in question. Therefore, he could not have foreseen nor prevented what happened and thus should not bear liability for it according to established principles of tort law.