In the 1894 case of Pepke v. Cronan, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Pepke, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Cronan argued that he had acquired title to this same property through adverse possession - a legal doctrine which allows someone who has been occupying or using another's property for an extended period without being challenged by the rightful owner to claim ownership rights on it. The court ruled in favor of Cronan stating that his continuous use and occupation of said land for more than five years prior to any action taken by Pepke constituted adverse possession under California law at that time. This ruling established important precedent regarding how long one must occupy another's property before they can legally claim it as their own under adverse possession laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pepke v. Cronan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Pepke guilty of violating an ordinance prohibiting the operation of billiard halls on Sundays, was incorrect. The dissent contended that this law violated Pepke's constitutional rights by imposing religious beliefs upon him and infringing his right to conduct business freely. They believed it was not within the state’s power to enforce such laws based on religious observances or preferences, as they saw it as a clear violation of separation between church and state principles embedded in constitution. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies with how these types of laws were enforced - some businesses were allowed to operate on Sundays while others weren't without any rational basis for differentiation.