In the case of Snell v. Chicago, 1893, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Illinois. The plaintiff, Snell, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from the state of Illinois which were subsequently sold by the state to another party (the city of Chicago). He argued that his purchase was valid and therefore he should be recognized as the rightful owner. However, it emerged during proceedings that at no point did Snell have legal title to these lands; rather they were part of public trust held by Illinois for use as a canal but later repurposed for railway development under an act passed by legislature. The court ruled against Snell stating that even if there had been irregularities in how this change occurred or how subsequent sales were conducted - matters on which it expressed no opinion - such issues could not alter who held legal title to these lands nor create new rights where none existed before.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Snell v. Chicago argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of the City of Chicago and against Mr. Snell, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Snell had been unfairly deprived of his property without due process or just compensation by the city's actions to change street grades around his property, causing significant damage to it. They contended that this action constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment and disagreed with the majority’s interpretation that such changes were merely part of a municipality’s right to make necessary public improvements without being liable for consequential damages suffered by individual property owners as long as no physical invasion occurred on their properties.