In the case of Ansley v. Ainsworth (1900), the US Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a land patent issued by the United States government could be challenged in court on grounds that it had been obtained fraudulently. The dispute arose when one party, who held title to a piece of property through such a patent, sought to evict another party claiming ownership under an older Spanish land grant. The lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff with the U.S.-issued patent and ordered eviction of those occupying under claim from Spanish grants. However, upon appeal, this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court which held that once issued, even if procured by fraudulent means or mistake, a land patent cannot be invalidated or set aside at law except directly by or on behalf of government itself; private individuals can't challenge its validity in collateral proceedings like ejectment suits.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ansley v. Ainsworth argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Ainsworth and against Ansley regarding land ownership rights, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the original trial proceedings, including misinterpretations of property law and procedural mistakes. They also felt that key pieces of evidence had been overlooked or improperly evaluated by both the trial court and their fellow Supreme Court Justices. As such, they disagreed with upholding a verdict they saw as fundamentally flawed due to these issues.