In the 1906 case of Johnson v. Brown, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute involving land ownership rights in California. The plaintiff, Johnson, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had received it as part of a Mexican Land Grant before California became part of the U.S., and thus his claim should be recognized under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War and required respect for existing property rights. However, defendant Brown argued that this grant was not valid because it hadn't been confirmed by Congress or patented by President Lincoln as required by law at that time. The court ruled in favor of Brown stating that even though there were provisions to protect pre-existing property claims after territories changed hands between nations, these did not apply if those claims weren’t properly validated according to established procedures within reasonable time limits set forth in relevant legislation.

The dissenting opinion in the Johnson v. Brown case argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider certain key factors. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how the lower courts had handled evidence and testimony, which they felt should have been addressed by the Supreme Court. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant laws and legal precedents, arguing that these interpretations were overly narrow or incorrect. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential implications of this ruling for future cases involving similar circumstances or legal questions. Overall, their main contention was that justice had not been adequately served due to procedural errors and misinterpretations of law.