In the 1894 case of Robb v. Vos, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington state. The plaintiff, Robb, claimed that he had purchased and owned a piece of property under an Act of Congress from 1862 which allowed individuals to purchase public lands for cultivation purposes. However, Vos argued that he was the rightful owner as his claim on the land predated Robb's by several years and was made under an earlier Act from 1850 which granted rights to settlers who were already occupying and improving upon public lands before they were officially surveyed or sold by the government. The court ruled in favor of Vos stating that his claim took precedence because it was established prior to any official surveying or selling activities conducted by the government. Therefore, even though Robb legally bought this property later on according to another law enacted afterwards (the Homestead Act), his title could not supersede Vos' existing rights acquired through settlement and improvement efforts made beforehand.

In the dissenting opinion for Robb v. Vos, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the plaintiff was incorrect and failed to take into account important legal principles. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during trial proceedings which should have led to a reversal of the judgment. They contended that evidence presented by both parties had not been properly evaluated and certain key facts were overlooked or misinterpreted by the jury and judge. Furthermore, they disagreed with how contract law had been applied in this case, arguing that it did not support the plaintiff's claim as strongly as suggested by their counterparts on bench. In conclusion, these justices felt compelled to express their disagreement with what they saw as an unjust verdict based on flawed reasoning and procedural mistakes.