In the 1902 case of Otis v. Parker, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, James G. Otis, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law before California became a state and therefore held valid title to the land despite its location within city limits established after his purchase. The defendant, Francis W. Parker contested this claim on grounds that when California was admitted into Union as a state in 1850, all unappropriated public lands within its boundaries automatically transferred to state control which included those located within city limits regardless of any preemptive claims made prior to admission. The court ruled in favor of Otis stating that while generally true that upon becoming states all unappropriated public lands transfer to new states' control; however there were exceptions for cases where individuals had already acquired vested rights under federal laws such as preemption acts prior to their territories' admissions into Union - these rights would be respected and protected by courts even if they conflicted with subsequent municipal or state regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for Otis v. Parker, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a California law allowing for the seizure of property without due process was unconstitutional. He contended that this violated both state and federal constitutions which guarantee citizens protection from unlawful seizures of their property. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "due process," arguing it should include notice and an opportunity to be heard before one’s property is taken away by government action. In his view, any law permitting such actions without these safeguards undermines fundamental principles of justice and individual rights enshrined in American legal tradition.