In the case of Davis, Agent v. Alexander et al., 1925, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff was an agent for non-Indian heirs to allotments of land originally granted by Congress to members of the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole). The defendants were purchasers who had bought parts of these lands from Indian heirs. At issue was whether restrictions on alienation applied only to original allottees or also extended to their heirs. The court ruled that such restrictions did not apply to conveyances made by full-blood Indian heirs after April 26th, 1906 - when Congress removed many limitations on sales by Indians - even if they inherited before this date but sold afterwards. Therefore it upheld lower courts' decisions against the plaintiffs: those who purchased from full-blood Indian inheritors held valid titles.

In the dissenting opinion for Davis, Agent v. Alexander et al., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that denied compensation to an injured railroad worker under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He argued that FELA was designed specifically to protect workers from employer negligence and should be interpreted broadly in favor of employees. The justice believed that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial demonstrating negligence on part of the employer which led directly to injury suffered by Mr. Alexander, thus making him eligible for damages under FELA provisions. Furthermore, he criticized his colleagues for their narrow interpretation of what constitutes "negligence" within context of this law and warned against setting a precedent where courts could arbitrarily decide when an employee is or isn't protected by federal labor laws based solely on judicial discretion rather than legislative intent.