In De Vaughn v. Hutchinson (1896), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, De Vaughn, claimed that he had acquired the rights to certain lands through an agreement with members of the Creek Nation before these lands were officially opened for settlement by non-Native Americans. However, this was challenged by Hutchinson who argued that such agreements were invalid as per federal law which prohibited any transfer of Native American land without congressional approval. The court ruled in favor of Hutchinson stating that under existing laws at the time, only Congress could approve transfers or sales involving Native American territories and therefore any prior claims made by individuals like De Vaughn would be considered null and void.

The dissenting opinion in De Vaughn v. Hutchinson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of the defendant, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial process and these mistakes had influenced its outcome unfairly against Mr. De Vaughn. They contended that certain evidence should not have been admitted due to its prejudicial nature and lack of relevance to the case at hand; they also disagreed with how jury instructions were handled by the presiding judge, arguing it led jurors towards bias for Hutchinson. Furthermore, they felt that some legal principles applied by lower courts were misinterpreted or incorrectly used - particularly those related to contract law and property rights - leading them conclude an unfair verdict was reached based on flawed reasoning and procedural irregularities rather than substantive justice being served.