In Walton v. California, the U.S Supreme Court in 1955 dealt with a case involving property rights and eminent domain. The petitioner, Walton, owned land that was taken by the state of California for public use under its power of eminent domain. However, he contested that he was not adequately compensated for his property as required by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which states "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." He argued that because some of his land had been leased to oil companies at the time it was seized, its value should have been assessed including these leases' potential future profits. The court ruled against him stating that only present market value could be considered when determining fair compensation in cases of eminent domain and not speculative or potential future earnings from mineral extraction on said properties.

In the dissenting opinion for Walton v. California, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law allowing landlords to evict tenants without cause violated constitutional protections of due process and equal protection under the law. The dissenters believed that this ruling gave too much power to landlords at the expense of vulnerable tenants, who could be evicted arbitrarily or discriminatorily without any recourse. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of property rights, arguing that these should not supersede basic human rights such as housing security. Furthermore, they criticized what they saw as an overly narrow reading of previous case law on landlord-tenant relations by their colleagues in favor of maintaining existing power structures rather than promoting justice and fairness.