The Senior v. Braden et al., 1934 case involved a dispute over land ownership in Ohio. The plaintiff, Senior, claimed that he had acquired the title to the disputed property through adverse possession - a doctrine that allows someone who has occupied or used another's property for an extended period of time without objection to claim legal ownership. However, the defendants (Braden and others) argued they were rightful owners as descendants of original proprietors from whom title was never legally transferred. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Braden and others stating that under Ohio law, continuous possession must be hostile and exclusive for 21 years before it can ripen into full ownership by adverse possession; since this condition wasn't met by Senior during his occupancy period on the disputed land parcel, he couldn't assert valid claims over its proprietorship rights.

The dissenting opinion in the Senior v. Braden case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Kentucky law, which allowed for the seizure and sale of property owned by non-residents who failed to pay taxes, was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed this law violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because it did not provide sufficient notice or opportunity for non-resident owners to challenge tax assessments before their properties were seized. They contended that such a drastic measure should only be used as a last resort when all other attempts at collecting unpaid taxes have failed. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on precedent cases involving resident taxpayers since those situations differed significantly from cases involving non-residents who may not receive timely notification about their tax obligations or impending seizures.