In the case of Butler v. Steckel, a dispute arose over land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, Butler, claimed that he had purchased the land from an individual who had acquired it through preemption rights granted by federal law to settlers on public lands. However, before this person could receive his patent (official government document confirming these rights), he sold his claim to another party who then sold it to Butler. Meanwhile, defendant Steckel also claimed ownership of the same piece of land based on a homestead application filed after the original settler's departure but before issuance of any patent. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Steckel and upheld lower court decisions stating that transfer or sale prior to receiving official title via patent was not valid under federal law at that time; hence no legal right passed onto subsequent purchasers like Butler. Therefore, when Steckel later applied for homesteading rights while physically occupying and improving upon said property as required by law - which were subsequently approved - he became its rightful owner despite earlier transactions involving other parties.

In the dissenting opinion for Butler v. Steckel, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Steckel was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the trial court which should have resulted in a reversal of its judgment. They contended that these errors included improperly allowing evidence and testimony into consideration, as well as incorrectly instructing the jury on certain points of law relevant to this case. Furthermore, they disagreed with how damages were calculated and awarded to Steckel, arguing it was excessive given what they saw as limited harm suffered by him due to Butler's actions. In their view, justice would have been better served if these issues had been properly addressed and corrected during appeal.