In the DeWeese v. Reinhard case of 1896, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Ohio. The plaintiff, DeWeese, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from the State of Ohio under an act passed by its legislature in 1852 and was therefore entitled to them. However, these lands were part of a grant made by Congress to aid in constructing railroads within the state. The defendant, Reinhard argued that this sale was invalid because it violated federal law which stipulated that such lands could only be used for railroad construction purposes. The court sided with Reinhard stating that when Congress makes grants for specific purposes like building railroads or schools etc., those conditions must be adhered to strictly and cannot be altered or ignored by any party including states unless explicitly permitted by Congress itself. Therefore, since no such permission existed here and as per federal law these lands were meant solely for aiding railroad construction within Ohio; their sale to DeWeese was deemed unlawful making his claim void.

The dissenting opinion in the DeWeese v. Reinhard case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax assessment on shares of national bank stock was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this taxation violated federal law, which prohibits states from taxing national banks more heavily than other types of property. They pointed out that Ohio had imposed a higher rate of taxation on these shares than it did on other forms of personal property, such as bonds and mortgages. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "discrimination" under federal law, arguing that any differential treatment between similar types of property should be considered discriminatory. Therefore, they concluded that Ohio's tax assessment was unlawful and should have been struck down by the court.