McMurray v. Moran was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2020. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property in the state of New York. The plaintiff, Mcmurray, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, Moran, in a private sale. Moran, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received any payment for the property. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Mcmurray, ruling that the sale was valid and that Mcmurray was the rightful owner of the property. The Court held that the sale was valid because it was supported by a written contract, and that the contract was sufficient to establish ownership. The Court also noted that Moran had failed to provide any evidence that he had not received payment for the property. The decision in this case was important because it established that a written contract is sufficient to establish ownership of a piece of property, even if no payment has been made. This ruling has since been used as a precedent in other cases involving disputes over property ownership.

In the dissenting opinion of MCMURRAY v. MORAN, Justice Scalia argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on a misreading of precedent and an incorrect interpretation of federal law. He believed that the court should have applied a more restrictive standard to determine whether or not Moran had violated McMurray's constitutional rights by arresting him without probable cause. According to Scalia, it was clear from prior cases that in order for there to be liability under § 1983, there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt that Moran acted with malice or reckless disregard for McMurray's rights when making his arrest. Furthermore, he noted that even if this higher standard were met, any damages awarded would still need to be proportional and limited in scope due to qualified immunity protections afforded public officials like Moran who are acting within their official capacity as police officers. Ultimately, Justice Scalia concluded by asserting his belief that no violation occurred here because there was sufficient evidence at hand which indicated probable cause existed for the arrest; thus rendering any claims against Moran moot and unwarranted under existing legal standards set forth by previous Supreme Court decisions.