In the case of Joyce v. Auten, a dispute arose over land ownership in Kansas City. The plaintiff, Joyce, claimed that he had purchased the property from a man named William Gillis and therefore held rightful title to it. However, the defendant, Auten argued that he was entitled to possession because Gillis had previously sold him an undivided half interest in the same property before selling it entirely to Joyce. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Auten stating that his claim took precedence as it occurred prior to Joyce's purchase agreement with Gillis. Therefore even though both parties believed they were purchasing full rights to the property from Gillis at different times; since Auten’s transaction happened first and there was no evidence suggesting fraud or misrepresentation on his part when buying his share of interest in this real estate asset; hence according to law principles governing such transactions - 'first come first serve', he should be granted ownership rights over this disputed piece of land.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Joyce v. Auten argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Auten, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial process and these mistakes had unfairly influenced its outcome. They contended that certain evidence presented by Joyce should have been admitted but was wrongly excluded by the presiding judge, thus denying him a fair opportunity to make his case. Furthermore, they disagreed with how some laws were interpreted and applied in this particular instance; arguing instead for an alternative interpretation which would have favored Joyce’s position more strongly than it did under the majority's view. Ultimately, they felt that justice had not been served due to these procedural and interpretive issues.