In the case of Loeber v. Schroeder (1892), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Illinois, which was originally purchased from Native American tribes by the federal government and later sold to private individuals. The plaintiff, Loeber, claimed that he had bought part of this land from an individual who had received it directly from the government; however, there were conflicting claims about whether or not this sale was legitimate due to potential fraud involved in obtaining signatures on deeds for these lands. The defendant, Schroeder, argued that he held rightful title to the disputed property because his ancestors had acquired it through a series of legal transactions dating back many years before Loeber's alleged purchase. The court ruled in favor of Schroeder based on evidence showing clear chain-of-title proving his family's long-standing possession and use of this property. This decision affirmed principles related to real estate law such as "adverse possession" (whereby someone can gain ownership rights over time if they openly occupy and use another person's property without permission) and "quiet title action" (a lawsuit brought to establish one’s right claim against any challenger). It also highlighted issues regarding fraudulent practices during early U.S history when dealing with native tribal lands.

In the dissenting opinion for Loeber v. Schroeder, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which held that a German consul could not be sued in an American court without his consent - was incorrect. The dissent contended that this interpretation of international law and diplomatic immunity was too broad, potentially allowing foreign officials to act with impunity while on U.S soil. They also disagreed with the majority's assertion that consuls should enjoy the same protections as ambassadors or ministers, pointing out differences between these roles under international law. Furthermore, they believed there were sufficient grounds for jurisdiction since both parties involved were residents of Illinois at the time of dispute and thus subject to its laws.