In Batchelor v. United States (1894), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Florida, which had been ceded by Spain to the US under the 1819 Adams-Onís Treaty. The plaintiff, Batchelor, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands based on Spanish land grants issued before Florida's transfer to American control. However, these claims were rejected by both lower courts and later by the Supreme Court itself due to lack of sufficient evidence proving their validity. The court held that while Spanish law did allow for such grants at that time period, it required proof beyond just oral testimony - specifically documentation or physical signs of possession like cultivation or improvement of said lands. As Batchelor could not provide this necessary evidence and his claim relied solely on verbal testimonies from witnesses who allegedly heard about these transactions decades prior from now-deceased individuals involved in them; his case was dismissed. This decision reinforced legal principles regarding burden of proof and evidentiary standards in property disputes involving historical treaties between nations.

In the dissenting opinion for Batchelor v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Batchelor was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of international law and treaty obligations. The dissenting justices believed that the U.S government had violated its own laws by not providing adequate protection to Batchelor, who was an American citizen residing in Japan at the time of his arrest. They contended that under existing treaties between America and Japan, Japanese authorities were obligated to notify American consular officials when they arrested an American citizen so as he could receive proper legal representation and fair treatment according to both countries' laws. However, this did not happen in Batchelor’s case which led him being tried unfairly without any form of legal representation from his home country or knowledge about proceedings due to language barrier issues. Therefore, they concluded that since these rights were denied during his trial process in Japan; hence making it impossible for him get a fair hearing; then all subsequent actions including extradition back into US custody should be deemed illegal too.