In the 1913 case Herbert v. Bicknell, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Indiana. The plaintiff, Herbert, claimed that he had purchased a parcel of land from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Bicknell argued that they were rightful owners as they had been occupying and using the property for several years without any contestation or claim by anyone else including Herbert who allegedly bought it earlier but never took possession nor paid taxes on it. The court ruled in favor of Bicknell based on adverse possession laws which allow someone to gain legal title to a property if they openly occupy and use it exclusively for an extended period while paying all relevant taxes without being challenged by others with potential claims. This ruling emphasized how actual occupation can sometimes trump formal documentation when determining real estate ownership rights under certain circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Herbert v. Bicknell, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax assessment on property located outside of Indiana, owned by an Indiana resident, violated constitutional principles. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling infringed upon the rights of states to control and regulate their own taxation systems without interference from other jurisdictions. They contended that allowing one state to impose taxes on property situated in another state would lead to confusion and potential double taxation issues. Furthermore, they asserted that such a practice could discourage interstate commerce and investment due to increased financial burdens placed on individuals or businesses owning properties across different states.