In the case of Markuson v. Boucher, 1899, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in North Dakota. The plaintiff, Markuson, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through preemption rights under federal law and sought to eject Boucher from these lands. However, it was found that at the time when Markuson filed his claim for preemption rights on this land parcel in question; it was still part of an Indian reservation and thus not subject to such claims according to existing laws. Therefore, even though he later received patent from government after this land ceased being part of reservation territory; his initial claim was deemed invalid as per legal provisions applicable then which stated that only "public lands" were eligible for acquisition via pre-emption rights while those within Indian reservations did not qualify as such until officially opened up by Congress for settlement or other purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for Markuson v. Boucher, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Markuson was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors in how the trial had been conducted and felt that these mistakes warranted a new trial. They pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimonies and suggested possible bias on behalf of some witnesses due to their relationship with Boucher. Additionally, they disagreed with how certain evidence had been handled during the proceedings, arguing it should have been admitted rather than excluded from consideration by jurors. Furthermore, they took issue with instructions given to jurors about what constituted reasonable doubt, believing them misleading and potentially prejudicial towards Markuson's case.