In the 1967 case Hanner v. DeMarcus et ux., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Hanner, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands by adverse possession and sought quiet title against defendants DeMarcus et ux., who held legal title to the property. The trial court ruled in favor of DeMarcus on grounds that Hanner's use of the land was not hostile or adverse as required under California law for an adverse possession claim. On appeal, however, this decision was reversed by an appellate court which found sufficient evidence of hostility in Hanner's use of the property. The U.S Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment of reversal from lower courts stating that there was substantial evidence supporting a finding that Hanner’s occupancy had been sufficiently open, notorious and continuous for statutory period necessary to establish his claim through adverse possession.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hanner v. DeMarcus et ux., 1967, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying an African American family's claim to property rights was incorrect and unjust. The dissenting justices believed that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs clearly demonstrated their rightful ownership of the land in question, which had been passed down through generations within their family. They also criticized what they saw as a failure on part of both courts to adequately consider historical context and systemic racial discrimination when interpreting relevant laws and precedents. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential implications for future cases involving similar disputes over property rights among minority communities.