The Bradley v. Lightcap case in 1903 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the validity of tax deeds. The plaintiff, Bradley, claimed that he was the rightful owner of certain lands in Kansas due to his purchase at a tax sale while the defendants argued they were entitled to possession based on their own subsequent purchases from other parties who had received invalid tax deeds for these same properties. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bradley, stating that under Kansas law, when property is sold for taxes and bought by an individual (in this case Bradley), it cannot be subsequently conveyed by any deed unless redeemed according to statute provisions within a specified time period which did not occur here. Therefore, all later transactions involving these lands were deemed void as they violated state laws governing redemption rights after tax sales.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bradley v. Lightcap argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax sale was incorrect because it violated due process rights. The dissenting justices believed that, despite technical compliance with state law regarding notification, the defendants did not receive adequate notice about their impending loss of property and therefore were deprived of an opportunity to defend their interests. They contended that such a significant deprivation required more than just minimal efforts at notification; rather, they advocated for reasonable measures under all circumstances to inform affected parties. Thus, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted sufficient notice and felt this ruling undermined fundamental principles related to property rights and due process protections.