In the 1903 case of Hooker v. Burr, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Hooker, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through an Indian allotment under federal law and sought to prevent Burr from asserting any claim on them. However, Burr argued that he held valid leases for these lands granted by individual Indians before they were allotted their parcels under federal law. The court ruled in favor of Hooker stating that such leases made prior to allotment were invalid because they violated the policy and purpose of Congress's legislation regarding Indian land rights which was aimed at protecting Native Americans from being dispossessed of their lands by unscrupulous individuals or corporations seeking to exploit them.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hooker v. Burr argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of the defendant who had been accused of fraudulently acquiring property, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there was sufficient evidence to suggest fraudulent intent on part of the defendant and therefore, he should not have been allowed to retain ownership over said property. They contended that by allowing such behavior without any legal consequences would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over property rights and could potentially encourage dishonest practices among individuals seeking to acquire properties through deceitful means.