In the case of Samuel Dinsman v. Charles Wilkes, Dinsman brought a suit against Wilkes for damages due to an alleged breach of contract. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence presented in support of the claim and thus dismissed it. In its ruling, the court noted that contracts must be supported by sufficient proof and that mere allegations are insufficient to establish a valid agreement between parties. Furthermore, any ambiguities or uncertainties regarding contractual terms should be resolved through clear language rather than relying on assumptions or inferences from circumstantial evidence alone. Ultimately, this decision serves as an important reminder that all contracts must have adequate supporting documentation in order to hold up in court and protect both parties involved from potential disputes down the line.

In the dissenting opinion of Samuel Dinsman v. Charles Wilkes, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial in his case for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. He believed that since this was an action for damages, it should have been tried by a jury as provided by law. The majority had held that because the defendant's actions were done under color of office, they could not be sued without special permission from Congress or state legislature; however, Justice McLean disagreed with this reasoning and stated that such laws would violate constitutional rights if applied to cases like these where no statute existed granting immunity from suit. He further argued that even if there were statutes providing immunity in certain circumstances, those statutes must still comply with constitutional requirements which guarantee citizens their right to due process and equal protection under the law - something he felt did not happen here when Dinsman was denied his right to a jury trial.