In the case of Lewers and Cooke, Limited v. Atcherly in 1911, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding land ownership in Hawaii. The plaintiffs, Lewers and Cooke Ltd., claimed that they had purchased a piece of property from Kamehameha III before his death but did not receive formal title until after his passing. The defendant, Atcherly, argued that he was the rightful owner as he had been granted possession by Queen Liliuokalani following her overthrow. The court held that since Kamehameha III's sale to Lewers and Cooke occurred prior to any change in sovereignty or government structure (i.e., while Hawaii was still an independent kingdom), it should be recognized under American law despite not being formally recorded at the time of transaction. Therefore, Lewers and Cooke were deemed to have valid legal title over Atcherly.

In the dissenting opinion for Lewers and Cooke, Limited v. Atcherly, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Hawaiian law allowing private citizens to condemn land for irrigation purposes violated constitutional protections of property rights. The dissenting justices believed that this power should only be exercised by public entities for public use and not given to individuals or corporations who could potentially abuse it for their own gain. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "public use," arguing that providing water supply is indeed a public service but does not justify taking away someone else’s property without proper compensation or due process. Furthermore, they contended that such laws could lead to corruption and favoritism in government dealings with private interests.