The Cochnower v. United States case in 1918 revolved around the interpretation of a federal law that prohibited the sale of liquor to Native Americans. The defendant, Cochnower, was charged with selling whiskey to an Indian who had severed all tribal relations and become fully integrated into American society. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cochnower, stating that the law did not apply to Indians who had abandoned their tribal status and adopted habits of civilized life. Therefore, it was deemed that selling alcohol to such individuals would not be considered illegal under this particular statute.

In the dissenting opinion for Cochnower v. United States, it was argued that the defendant's conviction should be overturned due to a lack of evidence proving intent to defraud. The dissenting justices believed that while there may have been negligence or even recklessness on part of the accused in his financial dealings, this did not necessarily equate to an intention to deceive or cheat others out of their money. They further contended that without clear proof of such fraudulent intent, convicting someone under laws designed specifically against fraud would set a dangerous precedent and potentially lead to unjust convictions in future cases where only carelessness could be proven rather than deliberate deception.