In the case of Hayes v. United States in 1897, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving land ownership and mining rights. The plaintiff, Hayes, had purchased a piece of property with valuable mineral deposits from an individual who had obtained it through the Homestead Act. However, under this act, lands containing these minerals were excluded from homesteading claims unless they were deemed more valuable for farming than mining. A subsequent owner contested Hayes' claim to the land's mineral rights based on this provision. The court held that since no objection was raised at the time when patent was issued by government to original homesteader stating that land was free from all encumbrances except those stated (which did not include any reservation of mineral or other special rights), it could be assumed that necessary determination as to character of land had been made by Land Department officials before issuing patent. Therefore, even if their decision might have been incorrect according to facts existing at time but unknown to them - such error would not invalidate patent nor open up question for re-examination in suit brought by later purchaser against holder of legal title derived directly from United States.

In the dissenting opinion for Hayes v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was incorrect and would lead to unjust outcomes. He believed that a person could not be convicted of murder without evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they had committed an act with intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm resulting in death. In this case, he felt there was insufficient evidence to prove such intent on part of Hayes; therefore, his conviction should have been overturned. Furthermore, Harlan criticized the majority for failing to consider important constitutional principles related to due process and fair trial rights while making their decision.