In the 1925 case of Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company v. Goneau, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over land ownership rights between a railway company and an individual named Goneau. The railway company claimed that it had purchased the disputed land from its original owners who were Native Americans, while Goneau argued that he had bought the same piece of land from another party who also claimed to have purchased it from its original owners. The court ruled in favor of Goneau stating that under federal law at that time (the Act of March 3rd, 1871), only Congress could approve sales or transfers involving lands owned by Native American tribes and any such transactions made without congressional approval were invalid. Therefore, since there was no evidence showing Congressional approval for the sale transaction between the railway company and its alleged sellers (Native Americans), their claim to ownership was deemed void whereas Mr.Goneau's purchase which involved non-Native parties held valid making him rightful owner.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company v. Goneau argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the law and application to this specific case. The dissent believed that there was a clear contractual obligation between the railway company and Mr. Goneau which should have been upheld by the courts, despite any perceived ambiguity or lack of clarity within it's terms or conditions as suggested by majority opinion. They contended that such contracts are common practice within industries like railroads where workers often face inherent risks due to nature of their work; thus these agreements serve as an important protection for employees against potential injuries on job while also providing companies with some level of liability protection too.