The U.S. Supreme Court case Los Angeles Farming and Milling Company v. City of Los Angeles in 1909 revolved around a dispute over land ownership rights between the city of Los Angeles and the farming company. The city claimed that it had acquired title to certain lands through a Mexican grant, which was confirmed by an act of Congress in 1851, while the farming company asserted its own claim based on possession and use for more than five years prior to filing suit against the city. The court ruled in favor of the City of Los Angeles, stating that under California law at that time, mere possession or use did not confer legal title unless accompanied by other specific conditions such as payment of taxes on assessed property value - conditions which were not met by the farming company's claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Los Angeles Farming and Milling Company v. City of Los Angeles, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the city was incorrect. He believed that there were significant factual errors made by the trial court which had not been properly considered on appeal. Specifically, he disagreed with how evidence related to land ownership and usage rights had been interpreted, arguing that these issues should have led to a different outcome in this case involving water rights disputes between private companies and municipalities. Furthermore, Justice Harlan expressed concern about potential negative implications for property owners' rights if such rulings were allowed to stand without further scrutiny or challenge.