In the 1890 case of Johnson v. Powers, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Johnson, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had acquired it through preemption rights under federal law. However, before this person could receive official title to the land from the government, another party named Powers obtained possession and began making improvements on it. When Johnson sued for ejectment (removal), Powers argued that he was protected by a state law which allowed individuals to claim unused or unoccupied lands if they made valuable improvements upon them within one year after taking possession. The court held that while states have broad authority over their own public lands and can enact laws regarding their use and occupation; such power does not extend to federally owned properties unless expressly granted by Congress. Therefore, since no such permission was given in this case - even though both parties acted in good faith - only those with valid claims recognized under federal law could acquire legal title to public lands within California's borders at that time. Thusly ruling against Mr.Powers' assertion of his right based on state legislation allowing him occupancy due to his improvement efforts.

The dissenting opinion in the Johnson v. Powers case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding property rights and inheritance law. The dissenting justices believed that, under existing laws, Mr. Johnson had a clear right to inherit his deceased wife's estate because there were no surviving children or other direct heirs. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Mrs. Johnson’s will, arguing it did not explicitly exclude her husband from inheriting her property after she died without issue (children). Furthermore, they contended that even if Mrs. Johnson intended to disinherit her spouse - which was unclear based on the language used in her will - such an intention would be legally invalid as spouses cannot be completely disinherited under state law unless specific conditions are met; conditions which were not present in this case according to them.