In the case of Richardson v. McChesney, Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (1910), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Kentucky. The plaintiff, Richardson, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from an individual who held them under a patent issued by the state. However, it was discovered that these lands were part of a larger tract which had been previously granted to another party by Virginia before it became part of Kentucky and thus could not have been legally sold or patented by Kentucky authorities later on. The defendant argued that since this previous grant was not recorded in accordance with local laws at the time when Virginia ceded its western territory to create what is now known as Kentucky, it should be considered void and therefore incapable of affecting subsequent grants made by Kentucky officials. The Supreme Court ruled against Richardson's claim for title based on his purchase from someone holding under a state-issued patent because such patents cannot override prior valid claims established under earlier jurisdictional authority like those granted while still within Virginia's domain even if they weren't properly recorded according to later-established local laws after territorial changes occurred.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Richardson v. McChesney argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply Kentucky state law regarding election procedures. The dissent believed that under Kentucky law, a candidate who received votes on defective ballots should still have those votes counted towards their total, as long as there was no evidence of fraud or misconduct. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted a "legal vote," arguing that any ballot cast by an eligible voter should be considered legal, regardless of minor technical errors or defects. Furthermore, they contended that disqualifying these ballots would effectively disenfranchise voters for mistakes made by election officials rather than the voters themselves. Therefore, they concluded that Richardson should have been declared the winner based on receiving more overall votes.