In the case of Doepel et al., Heirs at Law of Fearnow, v. Jones et al., 1916, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership in Arkansas. The plaintiffs were heirs to Fearnow who claimed that they had rightful title to certain lands under an old Spanish grant which predated Arkansas's admission into the Union. They argued that this grant should be recognized as valid by virtue of Article III of the Treaty between Spain and France from 1800 (Treaty of San Ildefonso), and later confirmed by Congress through various acts recognizing such grants. However, defendants contended that these lands had been part of public domain due to their inclusion within Louisiana Purchase territory and thus could not have been granted privately prior to statehood without express congressional approval. The court ruled against plaintiffs stating there was no evidence proving any specific recognition or confirmation by Congress regarding this particular Spanish Grant; general confirmatory acts did not suffice for validation purposes unless specifically mentioned therein. Furthermore, it held that even if such proof existed, it would still fail because private land grants made after Louisiana Purchase but before statehood required explicit Congressional sanctioning which wasn't present here.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Doeppel et al., Heirs at Law of Fearnow, v. Jones et al., argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation and application of legal principles related to property rights and inheritance laws. The dissent contended that the lower courts' decisions should have been upheld, which would have favored Doeppel and other heirs at law of Fearnow. They believed that these individuals were entitled to a portion or all of an estate left by their deceased relative under existing state laws governing succession and inheritance. The dissent also took issue with how evidence was evaluated during trial proceedings, suggesting there may have been procedural errors impacting fairness or accuracy in reaching verdicts.