In the 1893 U.S. Supreme Court case Riggles v. Erney, the court examined a dispute over land ownership in Kansas between two parties: Riggles and Erney. The land was originally owned by an Indian tribe but had been sold to settlers under a treaty with the United States government. However, due to misinterpretation of this treaty's terms, there were conflicting claims on who held rightful ownership of certain parcels of land. Riggles claimed that he purchased his parcel from someone who bought it directly from an Indian woman named Wah-ti-an-gah after she received it through allotment under the treaty provisions. Meanwhile, Erney argued that he acquired his title through preemption rights granted by federal law which allowed him to claim unoccupied public lands before they were officially surveyed or opened for settlement. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Erney stating that preemption rights took precedence over any subsequent private transactions involving these lands as per existing laws at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Riggles v. Erney, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which held that an insurance policy could be voided due to misrepresentations made by the insured party - was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that such misrepresentations were not material or intentional and therefore should not have resulted in nullification of the contract. They contended that there must be clear evidence of fraudulent intent on part of the insured for such drastic action as cancellation of a policy. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight had been given to certain pieces of evidence during trial proceedings and felt this skewed judgement unfairly against Mr.Riggles.