In the 1915 case of Gidney v. Chappel, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Gidney, claimed that he had purchased the land from an individual who obtained it through a lottery system established by Congress for distributing lands to non-Native Americans after they were taken away from Native American tribes. However, defendant Chappel argued that this was not valid because at the time of purchase, laws prohibited direct sales of these lands within five years of allotment without presidential approval - which was not obtained in this case. The court ruled in favor of Chappel and held that any sale made within five years without presidential approval is voidable at suit either by U.S government or Indian allottee (original owner). It also clarified that such restrictions on alienation are meant to protect Indians against their own improvidence and inability to manage business affairs effectively due to lack of experience. Therefore, even though Gidney may have acted in good faith when purchasing property believing it was legally sold; his claim could not be upheld as it violated federal law designed for protection rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Gidney v. Chappel argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Mr. Gidney guilty of fraud and conspiracy, was incorrect due to insufficient evidence presented at trial. The dissenting justices believed that there was not enough proof provided by the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Gidney had intentionally deceived his business partners or conspired with others for personal gain as alleged in the charges against him. They contended that some pieces of evidence were circumstantial and could be interpreted differently, thus failing to meet the high standard required for criminal conviction under U.S law.