In the case of Gilcrease v. McCullough et al., 1918, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Gilcrease, claimed that he had purchased land from an individual who was part Native American and therefore exempt from certain taxes under federal law. However, local tax authorities disagreed and sold his property to cover unpaid taxes. The court ruled against Gilcrease on two grounds: firstly because he failed to provide sufficient evidence proving that the original owner was indeed of Native American descent; secondly because even if such proof were provided it would not have affected the outcome as tax exemption did not apply once the land changed hands from a Native American to someone else (non-Native). Therefore, regardless of whether or not there were errors made by lower courts during proceedings - which is what led this case all way up to Supreme Court - those mistakes didn't affect final decision so they weren't considered significant enough for reversal.

In the dissenting opinion for Gilcrease v. McCullough, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying Thomas Gilcrease's claim on his deceased father's estate was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how Oklahoma state law had been interpreted in this case, particularly regarding inheritance rights and the legal status of illegitimate children. They felt that these interpretations unfairly disadvantaged Mr. Gilcrease and did not accurately reflect either the intent or letter of existing laws. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential implications for future cases involving similar circumstances if such an interpretation were allowed to stand unchallenged.