In the 1906 U.S. Supreme Court case of Ballentyne v. Smith, a dispute arose over land ownership in Oregon between two parties: Ballentyne and Smith. The issue at hand was whether or not a certain piece of property had been correctly surveyed and marked by government officials before it was sold to private owners. The court ruled that the original survey conducted by the government was valid, even though there were some minor discrepancies found later on during another survey done privately. The decision emphasized that initial surveys carried out for public lands are considered legally binding unless proven fraudulent or grossly inaccurate; slight errors do not invalidate them. This is because these surveys serve as an official record used to establish boundaries when transferring public lands into private hands. Therefore, despite any subsequent disputes about exact boundary lines due to potential inaccuracies in those early surveys, they remain authoritative references for determining legal land ownership rights under federal law.

The dissenting opinion in Ballentyne v. Smith argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting corporations from contributing to political campaigns was an overreach of judicial power and infringed upon corporate rights. The dissenters believed that corporations, as legal entities, should have the same First Amendment rights as individuals and thus be allowed to contribute financially towards political causes or candidates they support. They also expressed concern about potential bias against businesses within the court system due to this ruling, arguing it could set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving corporate interests. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of corruption risks associated with corporate campaign contributions, asserting instead that such donations could serve legitimate purposes in promoting economic growth and prosperity.