In the 1942 case of McLeod v. Threlkeld, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, McLeod, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from its original owners and was therefore entitled to possession of it. However, the defendants (Threlkeld et al.) argued that they were rightful owners because they had been occupying and using the property for many years without any challenge from anyone else - an argument known as "adverse possession". The court ruled in favor of Threlkeld et al., stating that their long-term use and occupation of the property constituted valid adverse possession under Texas law. This meant that even though McLeod may have technically bought the land from its original owners, his claim was invalid because he did not take action to assert his rights within a reasonable period after purchasing it.

In the dissenting opinion for McLeod v. Threlkeld, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of an individual who had been injured due to medical malpractice failed to adequately consider existing legal precedent and principles of fairness. The dissenting justices contended that allowing such claims could lead to an excessive number of lawsuits against doctors, potentially discouraging individuals from entering the medical profession or causing them to practice overly defensive medicine out of fear of litigation. They also expressed concern about the potential for fraudulent claims and stressed that patients should bear some responsibility for their own health outcomes. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "proximate cause," arguing that it was too broad and could unfairly hold doctors liable for outcomes beyond their control.