In the 1903 case of Wedding v. Meyler, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Kentucky. The plaintiff, Wedding, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from the defendant's father and was subsequently granted possession by him before his death. However, after his death, Meyler (the son) disputed this claim and asserted that he was now rightful owner as per inheritance laws since there were no legal documents to support Wedding's purchase claim. The court ruled in favor of Meyler stating that oral agreements for real estate transactions are not legally binding unless they meet certain conditions under what is known as "part performance doctrine". This requires evidence beyond verbal agreement such as payment or significant improvements made on property etc., which were absent in this case. Therefore it held that without any written contract or deed to prove sale between parties involved or substantial proof meeting part performance criteria; mere possession does not constitute ownership rights especially against heirs who have clear title through inheritance law provisions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Wedding v. Meyler argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law barring interracial marriage was fundamentally flawed. The dissenters believed that such laws violated basic principles of equality and individual rights, as enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. They contended that states should not have unfettered power to regulate personal relationships and family formation based on race or ethnicity, arguing this infringes upon individuals' freedom of choice and privacy rights. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential misuse of these laws for discriminatory purposes against minority groups. Ultimately, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding equal protection under law and due process.