In the case of Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming and Milling Company in 1900, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Thompson, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through preemption rights under federal law. However, the defendant company argued that it already owned these lands by virtue of a Mexican land grant which had been confirmed by an earlier decision of the United States Land Commission and subsequently patented by the United States government. The court ruled in favor of Los Angeles Farming and Milling Company stating that once a patent has been issued for any tract of land - as was done here - it is conclusive against all parties except for those claiming under another patent from the same government or its successors; thus making Thompson's claim invalid since his alleged preemption right did not result into issuance of any such patent.

In the dissenting opinion for Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming and Milling Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the rights of private property owners in relation to public waterways. The dissent contended that while navigable waters are indeed a public resource, this does not automatically grant unrestricted access across privately owned lands adjacent to these bodies of water. It was suggested that such an interpretation could lead to significant infringements on private property rights without just compensation, which would be contrary to constitutional protections. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion regarding what constitutes 'navigability' in terms of rivers and streams; arguing instead for a more nuanced understanding based on specific circumstances rather than broad generalizations.