In the case of Lloyd v. Matthews, a dispute arose over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Lloyd, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Matthews argued that he had acquired title by adverse possession since he occupied and used the land for more than 15 years without any challenge or interruption from anyone including Lloyd. Adverse possession is a legal principle where if someone occupies another's property for an extended period of time without being challenged by the rightful owner then they can claim ownership rights on it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Matthews stating that his long-term occupation and use of this land constituted as 'adverse possession' which gave him valid title over it despite not being its original purchaser or inheritor. This ruling upheld previous decisions made at lower courts thereby establishing precedent about how laws related to adverse possession should be interpreted and applied.

The dissenting opinion in the Lloyd v. Matthews case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the full implications of its ruling on property rights and contracts. The dissenters believed that by allowing a state law to interfere with a contract between private parties, the court undermined fundamental principles of contractual freedom and property rights protected under the Constitution. They contended that such interference could lead to arbitrary and unpredictable outcomes, as well as potential abuses of power by states at expense of individual liberties. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of “public use” clause in eminent domain context; arguing instead for stricter scrutiny when government seeks to take private property for public purposes.