In the 1896 case of Cross v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Cross, claimed that he had purchased the land from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, Evans contested this claim on grounds that they were granted possession by virtue of a tax sale conducted by local authorities due to unpaid taxes on said property by previous owners. The lower court ruled in favor of Evans but upon appeal at the Supreme Court level, Justice Harlan delivered an opinion reversing this decision. The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence showing any notice given to previous owners about their delinquent taxes or impending tax sale as required under Arkansas law at the time; hence such sales could not be considered valid transfers of title. Therefore, despite having paid for and received deeds for these lands through tax sales procedures which appeared regular on their face value; without proper notification being served priorly - those proceedings were deemed irregular and void ab initio (from inception). Consequently ruling in favor of Cross who bought directly from original proprietors thus affirming his rightful ownership over disputed lands.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cross v. Evans, 1896, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was flawed due to an incorrect interpretation of legal precedent and constitutional law. The dissent contended that the defendant had been denied his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because he was not given adequate notice or opportunity to defend himself against charges brought by a private party acting on behalf of the state. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence from previous cases was used and interpreted by their fellow justices in reaching their conclusion. They believed this resulted in an unjust outcome for Mr. Cross who should have been granted more protections as per his constitutional rights.