In the case of Handley v. Stutz, 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute involving land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Handley, claimed that he had purchased the property from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, Stutz contested this claim and argued that he held rightful ownership to the land as per Spanish grants recognized by American authorities after California became part of United States territory following the Mexican-American War (1846-48). The court ruled in favor of Stutz stating that his title to land was valid since it originated from a grant made by Spain before Mexico's independence and subsequently confirmed by US treaty obligations post-Mexican war. It further clarified that any subsequent claims based on preemption laws could not supersede such prior legitimate titles granted under international treaties.

In the dissenting opinion for Handley v. Stutz, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and violated principles of federalism. He contended that states should have jurisdiction over their own internal affairs, including matters related to taxation and property rights. In this case, he believed Kentucky had a right to tax its citizens' shares in an Ohio-based company because those shares were considered personal property located within Kentucky. The majority ruling held otherwise - stating that only Ohio could tax these shares as they belonged to an Ohio corporation - thereby infringing upon state sovereignty according to Justice Bradley’s perspective.