In the case of Grayson v. Lynch (1895), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Grayson, claimed that he had purchased the land from its original owner and thus held rightful title to it. However, Lynch argued that he was entitled to the property because he had been occupying it for several years under color of title - meaning his claim was based on a deed or other document which appeared valid but may not have been legally sufficient. The court ruled in favor of Lynch, stating that possession under color of title could be used as evidence towards establishing ownership if accompanied by continuous occupancy for five years prior to filing suit against an adverse party claiming superior right or title. This ruling affirmed previous decisions upholding squatter's rights and clarified how long one must occupy a property before they can claim legal ownership through adverse possession.

In the dissenting opinion for Grayson v. Lynch, it was argued that the majority erred in their interpretation of Alabama law regarding property rights and inheritance. The dissent believed that under Alabama law, a child born out of wedlock could inherit from his or her mother but not from his or her father unless there had been a subsequent marriage between the parents. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's decision to allow an illegitimate son to inherit from his deceased father who had never married his mother. They also took issue with how evidence was handled in this case; specifically, they felt that certain testimonies were improperly admitted and given undue weight by both lower courts and Supreme Court justices alike which influenced their final ruling unjustly.