In the case of Hendrickson v. Apperson (1917), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Kentucky. The plaintiff, Judge Hendrickson, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from Mr. Apperson and was therefore its rightful owner. However, Mr. Apperson argued that he never sold his land to Judge Hendrickson and thus still owned it himself. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Apperson based on evidence presented during the trial which showed no record or proof of sale between him and Judge Hendrickson for this particular piece of property.

In the dissenting opinion for Hendrickson v. Apperson, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse a Kentucky court ruling that upheld an election law requiring candidates to declare their party affiliation before running for office. He argued that this requirement did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as it was within a state's rights to regulate its own elections and ensure they were conducted fairly and orderly. Furthermore, he contended that political parties played a significant role in American politics, thus making it reasonable for states to require candidates' affiliations be made known so voters could make informed decisions at polls. In his view, such regulations were necessary evils of democracy rather than unconstitutional restrictions on individual liberties.