In the 1910 case of Hendrix v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Hendrix, claimed that he had been unfairly deprived of his property rights by an earlier court decision and sought to have it overturned. He argued that he was entitled to certain lands under an agreement made with Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes which were ratified by Congress in 1902. However, the government contended that these lands were part of public domain as they were not allotted or reserved for tribal use at the time Oklahoma became a state. The Supreme Court ruled against Hendrix stating that when Oklahoma entered into statehood in 1907, all unallotted or non-reserved lands within its borders automatically became part of public domain unless specifically exempted by law - which was not done so here. Therefore, any claims based on agreements prior to this date are invalid if they conflict with this principle.

In the dissenting opinion for Hendrix v. United States, the justice argued that there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the conviction. The defendant was accused of sending obscene materials through mail, but it wasn't clear whether he knew about the contents or not. The dissenting justice believed that mere possession and mailing did not necessarily mean knowledge of its obscenity, especially given no direct proof showing Hendrix's awareness about such content in his mails. Therefore, without concrete evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that Hendrix knowingly mailed obscene material - an essential element in this crime - convicting him would be unjust and contrary to principles of criminal law which requires guilt to be established beyond any reasonable doubt before anyone can be convicted.