In the 1908 case of Rogers v. Jones, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Utah. The plaintiff, Rogers, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through adverse possession and sought to quiet title against any claims by the defendant, Jones. However, Jones argued that he was entitled to these lands under an earlier federal law granting rights-of-way for irrigation ditches and canals across public lands not reserved for public uses (the Act of July 26th 1866). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jones stating that his right-of-way claim took precedence over Roger's adverse possession claim because it was based on a prior federal statute which granted him superior rights as long as he complied with its terms. Therefore, even though Rogers may have occupied the land continuously without challenge from others for many years (a requirement for claiming property through adverse possession), this did not extinguish or override Jones' statutory right-of-way entitlements.

In the dissenting opinion for Rogers v. Jones, 1908, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Jones was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial process which should have resulted in a reversal of judgment. They contended that certain evidence presented by Rogers had been improperly excluded and this could have potentially influenced the jury's verdict if allowed. Furthermore, they disagreed with how damages were calculated and awarded to Jones - arguing it did not accurately reflect actual losses suffered due to alleged breach of contract by Rogers. In their view, these factors combined rendered an unfair trial against Rogers thus warranting another review or retrial on more equitable terms.