The U.S. Supreme Court case Seerberger v. Cahn in 1890 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of certain lands situated in St. Louis, Missouri. The plaintiff, Seerberger, claimed that he had acquired title to these lands through tax deeds issued by the city's collector of revenue for unpaid taxes on said property and sought to remove any claims made by Cahn or his tenants on this land. However, it was found that there were several procedural irregularities with how these tax sales were conducted including insufficient notices and incorrect assessments of penalties which violated due process rights under state law as well as federal constitutional protections against deprivation of property without due process of law. Cahn argued that because these procedures were not followed correctly during the tax sale proceedings, they rendered all subsequent transactions null and void - including Seerberger’s claim to ownership based off those faulty deeds. The court agreed with Cahn's arguments finding them valid both legally and constitutionally thus ruling in favor him while also establishing an important precedent about strict adherence to proper legal procedures especially when dealing with matters involving potential loss or transferal of private properties.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Seeberger v. Cahn argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found for the defendant in a dispute over property rights, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were key errors made during trial proceedings and these should have been considered by the Supreme Court. They also disagreed with how certain laws and precedents were interpreted by both the lower court and their fellow justices on the Supreme Court bench. Specifically, they felt that more weight should have been given to evidence presented by plaintiff regarding his claim on disputed land ownership rights. Furthermore, they took issue with what they saw as an overly broad interpretation of legal principles related to real estate transactions and contracts law used to justify upholding lower court's verdict favoring defendant.