In the case of Nielsen v. State of Oregon in 1908, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding land ownership. The plaintiff, Peter Nielsen, claimed that he had purchased and owned certain lands within an Indian reservation in Oregon under a treaty between the United States and Klamath and Modoc tribes. However, these claims were disputed by the state of Oregon which argued that it held title to all swamp or overflowed lands within its borders including those located inside reservations unless expressly exempted by Congress. The court sided with the state ruling that when states are admitted into Union they gain title to all such lands unless specifically withheld by Congress at time of admission; this includes any located within boundaries of Indian reservations. Therefore, Mr.Nielsen's claim was rejected as there was no evidence showing Congressional intent to withhold these types from being passed onto new states upon their entry into Union.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Nielsen v. State of Oregon argued that the defendant's rights were violated due to an improper jury instruction. The justice believed that the trial court erred by instructing jurors they could convict based on a presumption of intent from an act, rather than requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt for each element of the crime, including intent. This was seen as contrary to established principles ensuring fair trials and protection against wrongful conviction. Furthermore, it was noted that this error had not been harmless since there was conflicting evidence regarding whether or not Nielsen intended to commit larceny when he took possession of another person’s property - thus making his intention crucial for determining guilt or innocence in this particular case.