In the 1903 case of Platt v. Wilmot, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Platt, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its rightful owner and was therefore entitled to possession. However, the defendant, Wilmot argued that she held title to this same parcel of land through inheritance from her father who had owned it since 1865. The court ruled in favor of Wilmot based on evidence presented which showed that her father's name appeared consistently as the owner on tax records for many years prior to his death and there were no records indicating any transfer or sale during his lifetime or after his death until Platt’s alleged purchase. Therefore, they concluded that despite any potential irregularities with how Wilmot inherited the property upon her father's passing (which was not clearly established), these did not negate her claim because there was no proof showing an alternate chain of ownership leading up to Platt.

The dissenting opinion in the Platt v. Wilmot case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law requiring liquor sellers to pay for damages caused by their intoxicated customers was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, as it unfairly targeted one specific group of business owners. They also contended that there was no clear causal link between selling alcohol and causing damage or injury, making it unjust to hold liquor sellers financially responsible for their customers' actions. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how different states interpreted and enforced such laws, leading them to question its constitutionality on a national level.