In the Russell v. Post case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute concerning land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, Russell, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, before this purchase was made official by patenting (the process of officially recording and recognizing property rights), another individual named Post also claimed to have bought the same piece of land from its original owner. When both parties attempted to assert their claims over the disputed territory in court, it became clear that there were discrepancies between state and federal laws regarding preemption rights and patenting procedures for newly acquired lands. The Supreme Court ultimately decided in favor of Russell because his claim was based on federal law which took precedence over conflicting state laws according to Article VI Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause) of US Constitution; thus reinforcing supremacy clause's importance when dealing with conflicts between state and federal legislation related to property disputes or any other legal matters.

In the dissenting opinion for Russell v. Post, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Russell was incorrect because it failed to consider important factors related to property rights and ownership. The dissenting justices believed that when Post purchased land from a third party who had previously leased it from Russell, he also acquired all existing structures on the land including any improvements made by Russell during his lease period. They contended that this principle is well-established in common law and should have been applied in this case as well. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an agreement between Post and Russell regarding compensation for these improvements; while the majority viewed this as evidence of an understanding between both parties about their respective rights over these assets, the dissenters saw no such implication in their arrangement. Instead, they interpreted this agreement merely as a goodwill gesture by Post towards his tenant rather than an acknowledgment or validation of any legal claim by him over those properties.