In the Meyer v. Richmond case of 1898, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and contractual obligations. The plaintiff, Meyer, had entered into an agreement with Richmond to purchase land in San Francisco. However, after making several payments towards the purchase price but before completing full payment or receiving title to the land, he discovered that there were outstanding liens against it due to unpaid taxes from previous years. He then sued for recovery of his money paid thus far arguing that these undisclosed tax liens constituted a breach of contract by Richmond who was obligated under their agreement to provide clear title free from encumbrances. The court held in favor of Meyer stating that while generally purchasers are expected to investigate potential issues such as tax liens themselves (the principle known as caveat emptor), this did not apply here because specific language in their contract placed responsibility on Richmond for ensuring clear title without any encumbrances including tax liabilities.

The dissenting opinion in the Meyer v. Richmond case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting certain types of business transactions on Sundays was an overreach of government power and violated individual rights. The dissenting justices contended that such laws were based on religious beliefs, which should not be enforced by secular authorities. They believed this constituted a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits government endorsement or promotion of religion. Furthermore, they asserted that these laws unfairly targeted specific industries while allowing others to operate freely on Sundays, thus infringing upon equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.