In the case of Potts v. Hollen (1899), the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Potts, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from Hollen and later discovered that there were pre-existing liens on it which made his title defective. He sought to rescind the contract and recover what he had paid for it due to this defect in title. However, Hollen argued that Potts was aware of these liens at the time of purchase as they were publicly recorded prior to their transaction. The court sided with Hollen stating that since public records showed existence of these liens before sale took place, Potts should have been aware or could have easily become aware by conducting proper investigation into property's history before purchasing it; thus making him responsible for any issues arising from them post-purchase. This ruling reinforced principle known as "caveat emptor" or "buyer beware", emphasizing importance placed upon buyers doing their own due diligence when purchasing properties rather than relying solely on seller's representations about state and condition thereof.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Potts v. Hollen argued that the majority's decision was not consistent with previous rulings by the court regarding similar matters. The dissenting justices believed that a person should be able to recover damages for injuries caused by another party's negligence, even if they were partially at fault themselves. They contended that it is unjust to deny someone compensation simply because they may have contributed in some way to their own injury, especially when another party was primarily responsible for causing harm. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of contributory negligence and its application in this particular case.