In the case of Ontario Land Company v. Yordy, 1908, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a land grant issued by Congress in 1866 to aid in building a railroad from Portland to Astoria in Oregon had been properly forfeited and returned to public domain due to non-completion of the project within a specified time frame. The Ontario Land Company claimed that it had purchased some of this land after forfeiture but before it was officially declared as part of public domain. However, George W.Yordy argued he held rightful claim over these lands under homestead laws since they were back into public domain at his time of settlement. The court ruled against Ontario Land Company stating that even though there might have been delays or irregularities in declaring lands as part of public domain post-forfeiture, such administrative issues did not affect their status as being open for settlement under homesteading laws once forfeiture occurred. Therefore, Yordy's claims were upheld while those by Ontario Land Company were dismissed.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ontario Land Company v. Yordy argued that the majority's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of Idaho state law, which they believed allowed for a tax deed to be issued without requiring proof that all statutory requirements had been met. The dissenting justices contended that this misinterpretation led to an unjust ruling against Ontario Land Company, who were not given adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of their tax assessment before being stripped of their property rights. They also disagreed with the majority's assertion that due process had been served, arguing instead that procedural fairness was compromised by deficiencies in notice and hearing provisions. In essence, they felt this ruling set a dangerous precedent by allowing states too much leeway in determining what constitutes sufficient notification and opportunity for taxpayers to contest assessments or penalties.