In the 1891 case of Brown v. Smart, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Utah Territory. The plaintiff, Brown, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through preemption rights under federal law by making improvements and residing on them for five years before applying for a patent from the government. However, Smart contested this claim arguing that at the time when Brown initiated his settlement and improvement efforts on these lands they were part of an Indian reservation not open to preemption or homesteading by non-Indians until Congress passed legislation opening it up for such purposes in 1880 - after Brown's initial occupation began. The court ruled in favor of Smart stating that while there was no question about whether or not Brown made significant improvements to these lands during his occupancy period; however, since those actions took place while it was still legally considered as part of an Indian reservation (and thus ineligible for preemption), they could not be used as basis to establish valid title claims against later settlers like Smart who came onto these same lands only after Congress opened them up for general settlement.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Brown v. Smart argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that an individual could not be tried for murder if they were unaware their actions would result in death, was flawed. The dissenting justices believed this interpretation of the law undermined its purpose and allowed individuals to evade responsibility for their actions by claiming ignorance. They contended that it is common knowledge that certain acts are likely to cause harm or death and therefore anyone who commits such acts should reasonably expect these outcomes. Furthermore, they asserted that allowing defendants to argue lack of intent based on ignorance sets a dangerous precedent as it effectively permits them to commit heinous crimes without fear of punishment so long as they can convince a jury they did not know their actions would have fatal consequences.