In the case of Kirwan v. Murphy in 1897, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Kirwan, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Murphy argued that he had acquired rights to this same property through adverse possession - a legal doctrine which allows someone who has been occupying or using another's property for an extended period without challenge by the rightful owner to claim title to it under certain conditions. The court ruled in favor of Murphy on grounds that his long-term use and occupation of the land met all requirements for claiming adverse possession under California law where this case originated from: continuous use for five years prior; open & notorious (visible) usage; actual & exclusive occupancy; hostile intent against true owners' interests; and payment of taxes during those years. This ruling upheld principles behind adverse possession laws – they encourage productive use/development while discouraging neglect/abandonment by absentee landlords or owners unaware about their properties being used by others.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kirwan v. Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law requiring all butchers, except those operating within New Orleans city limits, to slaughter animals at a specific location was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving individuals of their property without due process and denying them equal protection under the laws. They contended that there was no reasonable basis for exempting butchers in New Orleans from this requirement and saw it as an arbitrary distinction designed to favor one group over another. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that public health concerns justified such restrictions on individual liberty and economic activity.