The U.S. Supreme Court case Miller et al. v. McClain in 1918 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of land located within an Indian reservation in Oklahoma, which was allotted to a member of the Creek Nation under an agreement with the United States government and later sold to non-Indian purchasers (Miller and others). The issue at hand was whether or not this sale violated federal law that prohibited conveyance of such lands without approval from the Secretary of Interior for twenty-one years after allotment. The court ruled against Miller, upholding that any transfer or encumbrance affecting these lands during this period without governmental consent would be void, thus affirming McClain's claim on the property as he had obtained it through foreclosure proceedings initiated by his mortgagee who had received proper authorization from the Secretary.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Miller et al. v. McClain argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach of judicial power. The dissenters believed that there was no legal basis for holding a company liable for damages caused by their product after it had been sold to a third party, as long as they were not negligent in its manufacture or sale. They contended that once the product left their control, any subsequent damage should be considered unforeseeable and therefore outside their responsibility. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on public policy arguments rather than strict interpretation of existing laws and precedents, arguing this approach undermined legal certainty and predictability.