In the 1904 U.S. Supreme Court case Lee v. Robinson, the issue at hand was a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C., involving an alleyway between two properties owned by different parties. The plaintiff, Lee, claimed that he had acquired title to this disputed area through adverse possession - a doctrine that allows someone to gain legal ownership of property if they have openly occupied and used it for an extended period without protest from the original owner. However, the defendant Robinson argued that since he paid taxes on this piece of land and his deed included it as part of his property description, he should retain rightful ownership. The court ruled in favor of Robinson stating that while Lee did use the alleyway for many years without any objections from Robinson or previous owners; however, such usage was not exclusive as required by law because other people also used it freely including those who lived nearby and deliverymen among others. Therefore, despite long-term use by Lee's family over several decades (since 1865), their claim based on adverse possession failed due to lack of exclusivity in their usage.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Lee v. Robinson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Robinson and against Lee, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant errors made during the trial process that should have resulted in a new trial for Lee. Specifically, they believed that certain evidence presented by Robinson was improperly admitted and prejudiced the jury against Lee. They also took issue with instructions given to the jury by the presiding judge, arguing these instructions misstated applicable law and unduly influenced their verdict. As such, they felt it was unjust to deny Lee an opportunity for retrial under fairer circumstances.