In Hooe v. United States (1910), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Mr. Hooe, claimed that he was the rightful owner of certain lands which had been seized by the U.S government under an act of Congress from 1898 authorizing condemnation for park purposes. He argued that his title to these lands was superior to any other claim because it originated from original proprietors who held titles before Maryland ceded this territory to form part of District Columbia and thus should be recognized as valid despite subsequent changes in sovereignty. The court rejected this argument stating that when Maryland ceded its jurisdiction over this area, all private property rights were subject to regulation by new sovereign unless specifically reserved or protected by terms of cession agreement - which wasn't done here. Therefore, Mr.Hooe's claims based on pre-cession titles were invalid against U.S government's power of eminent domain exercised through Congressional Act. Furthermore, even if such rights could have survived change in sovereignty without express protection(which court doubted), they would still be extinguished due absence of continuous possession or claim for more than century after transfer occurred – thereby allowing adverse possession laws and statute limitations apply against them.

In the dissenting opinion for Hooe v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was incorrect and overly broad. The dissent contended that a more narrow reading of the statute would be more in line with its original intent. They believed that this case did not involve fraud or deceit as defined by law but rather an honest dispute over contractual obligations between two parties. Furthermore, they disagreed with applying criminal penalties to what should have been a civil matter, arguing it set a dangerous precedent for future cases where disputes could potentially be criminalized unnecessarily.