In the case of Rogers v. Durant in 1890, the US Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership and inheritance rights. The plaintiff, William P. Rogers, was an adopted son who claimed he had been wrongfully excluded from his adoptive father's will which left property to his biological children instead. He argued that under Mississippi law at the time of adoption (1852), he should have inherited as if he were a natural child born within wedlock. The court ruled against him stating that although Mississippi law did grant some inheritance rights to adopted children, it didn't equate them with biological children for all purposes related to succession and distribution of estates. The court also noted that even though subsequent changes in state laws may have expanded these rights further for future cases; they couldn't be applied retroactively to alter or affect past inheritances already decided upon by previous legal standards. This decision upheld lower courts' rulings denying Roger's claim on his adoptive father’s estate and reinforced the principle that changes in legislation do not apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for Rogers v. Durant, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Durant was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how the original trial had been conducted, particularly regarding evidence and witness testimony. They felt that these problems had unfairly influenced the jury's verdict in favor of Durant. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain legal principles related to contracts and property rights which formed part of their reasoning for upholding the verdict. In their view, this misinterpretation led to an unjust outcome where Rogers' legitimate claims were dismissed without proper consideration.