In the case of Starr v. Campbell (1907), the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Starr, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from an individual who was part Cherokee and therefore entitled to allotments under various treaties between the U.S. government and the Cherokee Nation. However, these sales were made before Congress passed legislation allowing for such transactions without federal approval - which was not obtained in this instance. The defendant, Campbell, later acquired title to these same lands through a different chain of conveyance that did involve federally approved sales from their original Native American owners. Starr argued that his earlier purchase should be recognized as valid because it occurred prior to Congressional action requiring federal approval for such transactions; however, the court disagreed with him on this point. Ultimately, they ruled in favor of Campbell by upholding previous rulings stating that any sale or transfer of allotted Indian lands made prior to obtaining required governmental consent is void – regardless if it happened before or after relevant laws were enacted.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Starr v. Campbell, 1907, argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider certain key factors. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how the evidence had been interpreted and applied by the lower courts. They also disagreed with how some legal principles had been used to justify decisions made during trial proceedings. Furthermore, they felt that these errors significantly impacted the final verdict and therefore warranted a review or reversal of judgment from higher court authorities such as Supreme Court itself.