In the case of Elliott v. Toeppner in 1902, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a certain land grant given by Congress to Kansas for railroad purposes could be taxed by local authorities before it had been sold or used. The court ruled that such lands were not exempt from taxation under federal law and thus, they could indeed be taxed by state and local governments prior to their sale or use. This decision upheld the principle that states have broad authority to tax property within their borders unless explicitly prohibited by federal law.

The dissenting opinion in the Elliott v. Toeppner case argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law. The dissenting justices believed that a contract should be considered valid if both parties agreed to its terms, even if one party later regretted their decision or felt they had made a mistake. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "fraud," arguing that it should only apply when one party intentionally deceives another, not when both parties willingly enter into an agreement with full knowledge of its terms and conditions. Furthermore, they contended that allowing individuals to void contracts based on personal regret would undermine confidence in contractual agreements and create instability in business transactions.