In the 1911 case of Gring v. Ives, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Gring, claimed that he had purchased the disputed property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Ives argued that he had acquired title to this same piece of land through adverse possession - a legal doctrine which allows someone who has been occupying or using another's property for an extended period without being challenged by the rightful owner to claim ownership of said property. The court ruled in favor of Ives on grounds that his continuous use and occupation of this land for more than five years (the statutory period required under Texas law) without any objection from either Gring or previous owners effectively granted him title via adverse possession. This ruling upheld lower courts' decisions and reinforced principles related to real estate law regarding acquisition by adverse possession.

In the dissenting opinion for Gring v. Ives, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a clause in an insurance policy contract. He argued that the language of the policy was not ambiguous and should be interpreted as it was written, without reference to extrinsic evidence or presumptions about what parties intended. According to him, if there were any ambiguity in terms used by insurers, they should bear responsibility since they drafted these contracts and had control over their wording. Furthermore, he believed that courts shouldn't rewrite contracts under pretense of interpreting them just because results might seem harsh or unexpected from insured’s point of view; instead they should enforce agreements as made by parties involved unless there are grounds for setting them aside on account such as fraud or mistake.