In the 1903 case of Joplin v. Chachere, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Louisiana. The plaintiff, Joplin, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from one Mr. Smith who was allegedly given power of attorney by his wife to sell their property while she was mentally incapacitated due to illness. However, after her recovery and subsequent death, Mrs. Smith's will left all her property to her daughter (Chachere), which included the disputed piece of land sold to Joplin. The court ruled in favor of Chachere on grounds that Mrs. Smith’s mental incapacity at the time made it impossible for her husband to legally act as power-of-attorney and sell off any part or whole of their jointly owned property without express consent from both parties involved; hence making such sale null and void ab initio (from inception). Therefore, since there wasn't any valid transfer/sale deed executed between Mr.Smith & Joplin during Mrs.Smith's lifetime,the said plot rightfully belonged to Chachere as per terms laid down in deceased mother's will.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Joplin v. Chachere argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law requiring separate railway cars for black and white passengers was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on racial segregation. The dissenters contended that this ruling contradicted the principle established in Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that laws mandating racial segregation were constitutional as long as they provided "separate but equal" facilities for both races. They asserted that there was no evidence to suggest that the segregated railway cars provided by Louisiana were truly equal in quality or condition, thus violating this standard set by Plessy v. Ferguson.