In the 1905 case of Guss v. Nelson, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Guss, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had received it as part of a Mexican land grant prior to California's admission into the Union. However, this claim was disputed by Nelson and others who argued they held valid mining claims on the same property under U.S federal law. The court ruled in favor of Nelson and his co-defendants stating that when California became a state, all unappropriated lands within its boundaries not included within private grants passed immediately to state control subject only to rights vested by Congress such as those given to miners under federal law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Guss v. Nelson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Nelson, was incorrect and failed to properly interpret existing laws related to property rights. The dissenting justices believed that Guss had a legitimate claim over the disputed land based on prior usage and established legal principles. They contended that by ignoring these factors, the majority effectively undermined long-standing precedents regarding property ownership and possession. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential implications for future cases involving similar disputes if this flawed interpretation were allowed to stand unchallenged.