In the 1906 U.S. Supreme Court case of Serra v. Mortiga, the court examined a dispute over land ownership in California that originated during Spanish rule before Mexico's independence and subsequent American control. The plaintiff, Serra, claimed he had inherited the property from his ancestors who received it as a grant under Spanish law while Mortiga argued that he purchased it legally after Mexican authorities seized it due to abandonment by its original owners. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mortiga, stating that according to Mexican law at the time of seizure, if land granted by Spain was not cultivated or occupied for one year without just cause, then it could be considered abandoned and reclaimed by government authorities for resale. Therefore since there was no evidence proving any cultivation or occupation activity on this particular piece of land within a year prior to its sale to Mortiga; henceforth making him legal owner.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Serra v. Mortiga argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established legal principles and precedent. The dissent contended that the court had failed to properly consider whether or not there was a valid contract between Serra and Mortiga, which should have been central to their deliberations. They also disagreed with how the majority interpreted certain aspects of property law, arguing they were too narrow in their understanding and application. Furthermore, they believed that by ruling as it did, the court effectively allowed for an unjust enrichment at Serra's expense - something which goes against fundamental notions of fairness and equity within our legal system. Finally, they expressed concern over potential negative implications this ruling could have on future cases involving similar issues.