In the 1905 case of Kolze v. Hoadley, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Kolze, had purchased property at a tax sale in Illinois and subsequently obtained a deed for it. However, he discovered that there were pre-existing mortgages on the property held by Hoadley which had not been extinguished by the tax sale as per state law. Therefore, Kolze filed suit to have these mortgages declared null and void so he could have clear title to his purchase. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that while Illinois law did allow for prior liens to be wiped out through such sales if proper notice was given to lienholders; in this instance no such notice was provided hence those liens remained valid despite the tax sale. This decision upheld principles of due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment ensuring fair treatment through normal judicial system especially as legal matter affecting one's life or livelihood is concerned.

In the dissenting opinion for Kolze v. Hoadley, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Hoadley was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how the original trial had been conducted, particularly regarding jury instructions and evidentiary rulings. They felt these errors had unfairly prejudiced the case against Kolze and should have resulted in a new trial being ordered instead of affirming Hoadley’s victory. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain legal principles related to property rights and contracts which formed part of their reasoning for upholding the verdict. In essence, they contended that justice had not been served by allowing procedural irregularities to stand uncorrected while also applying an erroneous understanding of relevant law.