In Green v. Watkins, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an appeal from a decision made in Virginia's Circuit Court. The plaintiff, William Green, had brought suit against Thomas Watkins for trespass and damages to his property caused by Watkins' cattle grazing on it without permission. The Circuit Court found that since there was no evidence of actual damage done to the land itself or any other tangible losses suffered by Green as a result of this trespass, he could not recover any damages from Watkins. On appeal however, the Supreme Court reversed this ruling and held that even though there may have been no physical harm done to Green's property due to trespassing animals, he still had legal grounds for recovering compensation based on his right as owner of said property being violated by another person entering onto it without consent or authority. This established precedent which has been used ever since in cases where one party is accused of infringing upon another’s rights over their own personal possessions or real estate holdings.

In Green v. Watkins, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving land located in another state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the case. Justice Johnson dissented from this decision, arguing that it would be unjust for states to deny each other access to their courts when they are both equally interested in protecting property rights within their borders. He argued that if one party is denied access to justice due to jurisdictional issues, then all parties should suffer an equal disadvantage by having no recourse at all rather than allowing one party's interests prevail over another's simply because of where the land is situated geographically. In conclusion, Justice Johnson believed that denying either side access to justice based on geographic location would lead only injustice and inequality among citizens of different states who seek legal protection for their property rights regardless of where those lands may lie.