In the case of Frost v. Wenie, 1894, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Frost, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had acquired it through preemption rights under federal law. However, the defendant argued that this was not possible because at the time of purchase by Frost's predecessor in interest (the person from whom he bought), there were no valid preemption rights to be transferred as they had been forfeited due to non-compliance with residency requirements stipulated by law. The court found in favor of Wenie and held that for someone to acquire land through preemption rights under federal law and then transfer those rights to another party; they must have first established residence on said land within six months after filing their claim - something which hadn't happened here. This ruling clarified how preemption laws worked regarding transferring claims between parties and emphasized compliance with all legal requirements before any such transfers could occur legally.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Frost v. Wenie argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring private businesses to obtain licenses for certain activities was an overreach of government power. The dissenters believed that this law violated property rights and individual liberties, as it gave the government too much control over private enterprise. They contended that while states have a right to regulate business practices for public safety or welfare, they should not be able to dictate who can engage in these practices through licensing requirements. This view held by the minority emphasized on upholding economic freedoms and limiting governmental interference in personal affairs.