In Shepard v. Adams, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in California. The case involved two parties who both claimed to have valid titles to the same parcel of land. One party, Shepard, had purchased the property from an individual who acquired it through a Mexican Land Grant that was later confirmed by U.S law after California became part of the United States. The other party, Adams, obtained his title from a tax sale when taxes on the property were not paid by its previous owner. The court ruled in favor of Shepard and upheld his claim to ownership based on his purchase from someone with legal rights under U.S law confirming Mexican Land Grants as legitimate sources for acquiring properties in territories ceded by Mexico following their war with America (1846-48). This decision reinforced earlier rulings which recognized these grants as lawful means for obtaining lands even if they were made before American sovereignty was established over those areas. Meanwhile, Adam's claim based on tax sales was rejected because he failed to prove that proper procedures were followed during such sales including adequate notice given to original owners about unpaid taxes and impending auctions.

In the dissenting opinion for Shepard v. Adams, the justice argued that there was a lack of evidence to support the majority's decision. The dissent focused on two main points: firstly, it questioned whether Mr. Shepard had truly intended to make his home in California and secondly, it challenged whether he had actually abandoned his previous domicile in Illinois. It pointed out that mere physical presence is not enough to establish residency; intent must also be proven beyond reasonable doubt which wasn't done adequately according to this view. Furthermore, even if Mr. Shepard did intend to change his residence at some point in future, until he took definitive action towards this end (like selling or renting out his property), he should still be considered an Illinois resident under law as per their interpretation of existing legal principles related with domicile determination.