In the case of Miller v. King, 1911, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could be held liable for damages when it refused to honor a check due to insufficient funds in the account. The plaintiff, Miller, had written a check which was subsequently dishonored by First National Bank of Fayette because there were not enough funds in his account at that time. However, later on the same day but after banking hours closed and before business resumed next morning (a period during which no transactions took place), sufficient deposits were made into his account that would have covered the check amount. The court ruled against Miller stating that banks are only required to honor checks if there are sufficient funds available at the exact moment when they're presented for payment - regardless of any subsequent deposits or changes in balance status afterwards within same business day. Therefore, even though money was deposited into Mr. Miller's account later on same day after banking hours ended and before next working day started (which technically fell within 'same' calendar date as per general understanding), it did not change bank's liability situation since those additional funds weren't present exactly when original transaction attempt occurred earlier during open banking hours.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Miller v. King, Substituted for The First National Bank of Fayette, Idaho (1911) argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Miller was incorrect. They contended that there were significant procedural errors made by the trial court which should have resulted in a reversal of its judgment. Specifically, they pointed out that certain evidence presented during the trial had been improperly admitted and prejudiced the jury against Miller. Furthermore, they disagreed with how damages were calculated and awarded to King based on this flawed evidence. In their view, these issues constituted serious violations of due process rights under law which merited reconsideration by an appellate court.