In the case of Tregea v. Modesto Irrigation District, 1896, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over water rights in California. The plaintiff, Tregea, claimed that he had prior and superior rights to use certain waters for irrigation purposes which were being diverted by the defendant, Modesto Irrigation District. He sought an injunction against this diversion but was denied relief by both lower courts on grounds that his claim lacked merit since he did not own any land irrigated by these waters at the time when they were first appropriated for public use. The Supreme Court affirmed these decisions stating that under Californian law regarding riparian water rights; priority is given to those who first put them into beneficial use and such right cannot be acquired merely through subsequent possession of lands benefited from such usage without actual appropriation or user thereof during all intervening period between original appropriation and subsequent acquisition. Therefore it held that even if Tregea's predecessors had used these waters before their diversion by district; unless they continued doing so until his purchase of said lands (which was not proven), he could not assert any preferential right thereto based solely upon their previous usage.

The dissenting opinion in the Tregea v. Modesto Irrigation District case argued that the irrigation district, as a public entity, should not have been allowed to condemn private property for its use without just compensation. The justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of California law and believed it was unconstitutional to allow such an action without providing adequate remuneration to the affected landowner. He contended that this ruling violated fundamental principles of property rights and due process under both state and federal constitutions. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a dangerous precedent where government entities could seize private lands arbitrarily or unfairly under guise of serving public interest.