In Corbett v. Craven (1909), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington state. The plaintiff, Corbett, claimed that he had purchased the disputed property from an individual who had acquired it through a patent issued by the U.S government under the Homestead Act of 1862. However, defendant Craven argued that this patent was invalid because it was issued based on fraudulent representations made by its original recipient to federal authorities about his compliance with residency and cultivation requirements stipulated in the act. The court ruled in favor of Corbett stating that once a patent for land has been signed and delivered by government officials, its validity cannot be challenged in courts at later dates unless there is evidence showing gross negligence or fraud committed by these officials during issuance process.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Corbett v. Craven argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Craven and against Corbett on a land dispute, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the evidence presented did not conclusively prove Craven's claim to ownership of the disputed property. They also disagreed with how certain legal principles were applied by both the lower court and their colleagues on the Supreme Court bench during deliberations over this case. Specifically, they felt that too much weight had been given to presumptions rather than hard facts when determining who held rightful title to the land in question.