In the case of Schroeder v. Young in 1895, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Schroeder, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had acquired it through inheritance. However, Young contested this claim and argued that he was the rightful owner because he bought it directly from its original proprietor before his death. The court ruled in favor of Young based on two main reasons: firstly, there were no legal documents to prove that the original owner intended to pass down his property as an inheritance; secondly, even if such evidence existed but wasn't legally recorded or acknowledged by law during his lifetime then any subsequent sale would be considered valid under California's laws at that time which prioritized transactions made in good faith over unrecorded wills or transfers.

In the dissenting opinion for Schroeder v. Young, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring liquor sellers to obtain a license and pay a fee was an overreach of government power. The dissenting justices believed this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving individuals of their property without due process of law. They contended that selling liquor is not inherently harmful or dangerous, so there should be no need for such stringent regulation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that states have broad powers to regulate businesses within their borders in order to protect public health and safety. In their view, these regulations were arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions on individual liberty and economic freedom.