In the 1908 case of Ingersoll v. Coram, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Oregon. The plaintiff, Ingersoll, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Coram (the executor of an estate), argued that his deceased client had acquired title to this same piece of land through adverse possession before Ingersoll's purchase took place. The court ruled in favor of Coram on appeal after examining evidence related to both claims. It found that there was sufficient proof showing continuous use and occupation by Coram's client for more than ten years prior to any claim made by Ingersoll - which is necessary under law for establishing adverse possession rights. This ruling emphasized two key principles: first, when someone openly occupies another person’s property without permission over a long period time (usually defined by state statute), they can gain legal ownership; secondly, once such rights are established through adverse possession laws they cannot be overridden or ignored even if subsequent transactions occur involving unaware third parties.

In the dissenting opinion for Ingersoll v. Coram, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in its waters was unconstitutional. He believed it violated both the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. According to him, these constitutional provisions guaranteed citizens equal access to public resources regardless of their residency status. He also pointed out that such laws could lead states into petty rivalries over natural resources which would be detrimental to national unity and harmony among states.