In the 1898 case of Calhoun v. Violet, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Calhoun, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from Violet's father and was therefore its rightful owner. However, Violet argued that his father did not have legal title to sell because it belonged to him through inheritance from his mother who died intestate (without leaving a will). The lower court ruled in favor of Violet based on local law which stated that real estate owned by an intestate person passes directly to their heirs rather than being part of the general estate for distribution among all heirs or creditors. The Supreme Court reversed this decision arguing that under federal law applicable at the time when Mrs. Violet died (the Act of Congress passed February 10th, 1855), her real estate should have been considered as personal assets and thus subject to administration like any other parts of her personal estate before passing onto her son. Therefore Mr.Violet senior could legally sell it off without needing consent from his son.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Calhoun v. Violet argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Violet, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial process and these mistakes had an impact on its outcome. They contended that certain evidence presented by Calhoun should have been admitted but was wrongly excluded by the trial judge. This exclusion, they felt, prevented Calhoun from fully presenting his defense and thus denied him a fair trial. Furthermore, they disagreed with how some laws were interpreted and applied in this case; arguing it deviated from established legal principles without sufficient justification or explanation for doing so.