In the McDougal v. McKay case of 1914, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land rights in Oregon. The plaintiff, McDougal, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from an Indian named Tom who was part of the Umpqua Tribe and argued that this purchase gave him legal ownership over these lands. However, defendant McKay contended that under existing laws at the time (particularly those established by treaties between Native American tribes and federal government), individual members of recognized tribes were not allowed to sell their allotted tribal lands without explicit permission from Congress - which was not obtained in this instance. The court sided with McKay's argument and held that any sale or transfer of land owned by Native Americans must be explicitly approved by Congress to be considered legally valid. Therefore, it concluded that McDougal did not have legitimate claim over these disputed territories as his purchase from Tom lacked congressional approval required for such transactions.

In the dissenting opinion for McDougal v. McKay, the justice argued that there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the majority's decision. The dissent focused on questioning whether or not there was sufficient proof to establish that McDougal had knowingly and willingly committed fraud in his business dealings as alleged by McKay. They contended that while some irregularities were present in McDougal's actions, these did not necessarily equate to fraudulent intent or behavior. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential bias influencing the verdict due to negative public sentiment towards businessmen like McDougal during this period of economic instability and mistrust towards corporations. Thus, they believed it would be unjust to uphold a conviction based on insufficient evidence and potentially biased perceptions rather than concrete facts proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.