In the 1912 case of Plested v. Abbey, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Plested, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one Mr. Wilson who had obtained it through inheritance from his father's estate. However, the defendant, Abbey, argued that she was actually the rightful owner because she had bought it directly from Wilson's father before his death and therefore held an older claim to it than Plested did. The court ruled in favor of Abbey on account of her earlier purchase date and dismissed Plested’s claims as invalid due to lack of evidence supporting them; specifically noting that there were no records indicating any transfer or sale between Wilson Sr., Wilson Jr., or Plested himself which could have substantiated their argument for ownership rights over hers.

In the dissenting opinion for Plested v. Abbey, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Mr. Plested, who had been accused of fraudulently concealing assets during bankruptcy proceedings, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed there were significant issues with how evidence in the case had been handled and interpreted by both the trial court and their fellow Supreme Court Justices. They felt that some pieces of evidence used against Mr. Plested should have been deemed inadmissible due to lack of proper authentication or because they constituted hearsay - statements made outside of court presented as truth within a trial setting - which is generally not allowed under U.S law unless certain exceptions apply.