In the Pickering v. Lomax case of 1891, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Pickering, claimed that he had purchased the disputed property from its original owner and thus held rightful title to it. However, defendant Lomax argued that he was entitled to the same piece of land through a grant from his wife's family who were Mexican citizens before Texas became part of United States territory. The court ruled in favor of Lomax stating that under international law and treaty obligations between Mexico and US at time when Texas joined Union (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo), rights granted by Mexican government prior to annexation should be respected unless explicitly revoked or altered by subsequent legislation. Therefore, since there was no evidence showing any revocation or alteration regarding this particular grant made by Mexican authorities before annexation occurred; it remained valid even after change in sovereignty. This decision underscored respect for pre-existing property rights during territorial transitions as well as importance placed on upholding international treaties within American legal system.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pickering v. Lomax argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of a key legal principle, namely, whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused by his livestock trespassing on another's property. The dissenters believed that the law clearly established liability regardless of whether or not the owner was aware his animals were loose and causing damage. They also disagreed with how much weight was given to certain pieces of evidence presented during trial, arguing that some should have been considered more significant than they were deemed by the majority. Furthermore, they felt there was sufficient proof provided to establish negligence on part of Mr. Pickering which led to his livestock damaging Mr.Lomax’s land; hence he should bear responsibility for it.