In the case of Matter of Eastern Cherokees, Petitioners, 1910, the United States Supreme Court was asked to review a decision made by the Court of Claims regarding funds owed to the Eastern Cherokee tribe. The original claim was based on an 1835 treaty between the U.S. government and Cherokee Nation which promised compensation for lands ceded in Georgia and other states. However, due to various administrative issues and alleged frauds committed against them by agents acting on behalf of US Government, they were not fully compensated as per terms agreed upon in Treaty. The court ruled that under Article XII of this treaty (Treaty with The Cherokee), all claims arising from previous treaties would be considered settled once payment had been made according to its terms. Despite this provision though, it found that there were still outstanding obligations towards these Native Americans because some payments had been improperly handled or withheld altogether. As such, it ordered further investigation into matter so as determine exact amount owed - something which ultimately led to significant financial settlement being awarded later down line after years legal wrangling over issue at hand.

The dissenting opinion in the Matter of Eastern Cherokees case, 1910, argued that the majority's decision to deny compensation to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians was unjust. The dissenters believed that there was sufficient evidence proving their entitlement to funds from a treaty signed with the U.S government in 1835-36. They contended that this group had been wrongfully excluded from previous settlements due to an incorrect interpretation of their status and rights as Native Americans who remained east after most were forcibly moved west on what is known as Trail of Tears. Furthermore, they disagreed with how the Court interpreted historical documents and testimonies used in determining tribal membership and eligibility for benefits under said treaty. In essence, they felt it unfair not only because it denied rightful claims but also because it set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving indigenous peoples' rights and treaties.