In the case of King v. Cross, 1899, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, King, claimed that he had purchased a piece of land from an individual who had received it as part of an allotment under the Dawes Act - legislation aimed at encouraging Native Americans to integrate into American society by providing them with private property. However, Cross contested this claim and argued that he was entitled to the land because he was occupying it before King's alleged purchase took place. The court ruled in favor of Cross on grounds that his occupancy predated any potential sale and thus held more weight legally than King's subsequent acquisition attempt.

The dissenting opinion in the case of KING v. CROSS, 1899, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect due to an improper application of law. The dissent contended that the defendant had not been given adequate opportunity to present his defense and therefore his constitutional rights were violated. They also disagreed with how evidence was handled during trial proceedings, arguing it unfairly prejudiced the jury against the defendant. Furthermore, they believed there were errors made by both prosecution and defense attorneys which should have resulted in a mistrial being declared rather than allowing for an unjust conviction to stand unchallenged.