In the 1910 case of Arnett v. Reade, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Arnett, claimed that he had purchased the land from an individual who had received it as part of a government allotment to members of certain Native American tribes. However, under federal law at that time, such lands could not be sold or otherwise transferred without approval from the U.S Government for a period of 25 years after their initial allocation. The defendant argued this made Arnett's purchase invalid and thus they were rightful owner due to subsequent acquisition. The court ruled in favor of Reade (the defendant), stating that any sale or transfer conducted within those 25 years was voidable by either party involved if done without governmental consent - regardless whether both parties willingly participated in transaction or not. This decision upheld restrictions on alienation placed upon tribal allotments by Congress aimed at protecting Native Americans' property rights against exploitation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Arnett v. Reade, 1910, argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to adequately consider the rights and interests of both parties involved. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Arnett had a legitimate claim to his property and should not have been denied this right based on technicalities or procedural issues. They contended that the lower court's ruling was correct in acknowledging Mr. Arnett’s ownership rights over his property despite any potential irregularities with how he acquired it initially from Mrs.Reade . Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant laws and precedents, arguing instead for an approach which prioritized individual property rights over legal formalities or bureaucratic procedures.