In the case of Patterson v. Hewitt, 1904, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Patterson, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had received it as part of his wife's dowry. However, the defendant argued that this transaction was invalid because at the time it took place (in 1867), women did not have legal rights to own or sell property under District law. Therefore, according to him, any sale made by her husband would also be void. The court sided with the defendant and held that since women were unable to legally own property in Washington D.C., they could not transfer ownership either directly or indirectly through their husbands. This decision upheld traditional gender roles and reinforced patriarchal norms within society during this period.

The dissenting opinion in the Patterson v. Hewitt case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding property rights and taxation. The dissent contended that the tax assessment on Patterson's land, which had been mistakenly assessed as improved when it was actually unimproved, violated his constitutional right to due process of law. They believed that this error constituted an arbitrary exercise of power by state officials without proper notice or opportunity for hearing, thus infringing upon Patterson’s rights under both federal and state constitutions. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that such errors could be corrected through subsequent proceedings; instead arguing these mistakes should have been rectified before any tax imposition occurred. In essence, they held firm to their belief in strict adherence to procedural fairness over practical considerations.