In Clune v. United States (1895), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving a dispute over land in California. The plaintiff, Clune, claimed that he had purchased the land from Mexican citizens who held legal title to it under Mexican law prior to California's admission as a state in 1850. However, the U.S government argued that these individuals did not have valid title because they were not citizens of Mexico at the time of their alleged grant and thus could not benefit from provisions protecting property rights of Mexican citizens following cession of territory to America after the Mexican-American War. The court sided with the government and upheld lower courts' decisions denying Clune’s claim. It found no evidence proving that those who sold him this land ever legally owned it or were indeed Mexican nationals when they allegedly received it as a grant from Mexico before American acquisition. Therefore, their purported conveyance couldn't be protected by treaty stipulations safeguarding former Mexicans’ property rights upon transferal of sovereignty.

In the dissenting opinion for Clune v. United States, the justice argued that there was a lack of evidence to support the conviction and therefore it should be overturned. The defendant was accused of conspiring to defraud insurance companies by setting fire to his own property, but according to this dissenting view, no direct proof was provided that he had actually committed arson or conspired with others in doing so. Furthermore, it was pointed out that some witnesses' testimonies were inconsistent and unreliable due their personal bias against Clune. It is also emphasized on how crucial it is for courts not only to consider circumstantial evidence but also ensure its sufficiency before convicting someone based on such evidences alone as they can often be misleading or misinterpreted.