In the case of Radford v. Myers (1913), the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Radford, claimed that he had purchased the land from an individual who was part Native American and therefore exempt from certain restrictions on selling tribal lands without federal approval. However, Myers contested this claim arguing that because of these restrictions, the sale to Radford was invalid as it lacked necessary government consent. The court ruled in favor of Myers stating that any transfer or conveyance of allotted Indian lands within 25 years after issuance is void unless approved by President under Act June 7th 1897; hence making Radford's purchase illegitimate.

The dissenting opinion in Radford v. Myers argued that the majority had erred in its interpretation of the law and application to the facts of this case. The dissent believed that there was no legal basis for denying Mr. Radford's claim, as he had complied with all necessary procedures and requirements under existing laws at the time his claim was made. They contended that it was not within their purview to retroactively apply new interpretations or changes in law to invalidate claims made under previous statutes, particularly when those claims were validly established according to those prior rules. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that Mr. Radford did not have a vested right in his property; instead, they maintained he did indeed possess such rights which should be protected by law rather than undermined by shifting judicial interpretations.