Joseph W. Walsh, Administrator of William Rector, Deceased, v. The United States was a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1843 that centered around whether or not an administrator could sue on behalf of their deceased ward's estate for damages caused by the government. In this particular instance, Joseph W. Walsh had been appointed as administrator to William Rector's estate and sought compensation from the US government for injuries sustained during his service in the Navy due to negligence on part of his commanding officer which ultimately led to his death while still enlisted in active duty. The court ruled against Walsh stating that he did not have standing because he was acting as an agent rather than a legal representative with authority over Rector’s estate at time of injury and thus could not bring suit against the federal government on behalf of said estate; however they also noted that if there were any other representatives who had been legally authorized prior to injury then those individuals would be able to pursue such claims successfully under similar circumstances moving forward.

In Joseph W. Walsh, Administrator of William Rector, Deceased v. The United States, the dissenting opinion was that the Court should not have dismissed the case on a technicality and instead should have heard it on its merits. Justice McLean argued that since there had been no previous decision in this matter by any court or tribunal, it would be unjust to dismiss the case without hearing it first. He also noted that if Congress intended for such cases to be decided solely based on technicalities then they could have easily included language specifying as much in their legislation but chose not to do so. Furthermore he stated that even though some of these matters may seem trivial at times they are still important enough for them to receive due consideration from courts before being dismissed out-of-hand without proper examination into their merits and facts surrounding them.