In the 1893 U.S. Supreme Court case Runkle v. Burnham, the court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Runkle, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one Mr. Pacheco who had obtained it through inheritance from his father's estate (the original Mexican grantee). However, Burnham also laid claim to this same parcel of land based on an earlier purchase made directly from Pacheco senior before his death and subsequent distribution of assets among heirs. The main issue was whether or not the sale by Pacheco senior to Burnham was valid under Californian law at that time which required all sales involving real estate to be documented in writing - something that hadn't been done for this particular transaction. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Runkle stating that although there may have been some form of verbal agreement between Pacheco senior and Burnham regarding sale/purchase terms prior to his death; without any written evidence confirming such arrangement as per state laws then applicable - no legal transfer could've taken place thereby making Runkle rightful owner since he'd bought said property posthumously via proper channels i.e., through heir(s) following due process.

In the dissenting opinion for Runkle v. Burnham, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying Mr. Runkle his military pension was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Congress had intended to provide pensions for all veterans who served honorably during wartime, regardless of whether they were later dismissed from service under questionable circumstances. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled in the past and expressed concern about setting a precedent where an individual could be denied their rightful benefits based on potentially flawed or biased administrative decisions made after their service ended. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant laws and regulations governing military pensions and felt these should have been applied more broadly in this case.