The Stevenson v. United States case in 1895 revolved around the interpretation of a federal law concerning liquor taxes. The defendant, Stevenson, was charged with selling distilled spirits without paying the required tax and not having the spirits in stamped packages as mandated by law. He argued that he had bought these liquors from another person who had paid all necessary taxes and thus believed he was exempted from any further taxation or packaging requirements. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that each sale of unstamped packaged liquor constituted a new offense under federal laws regardless of whether previous sellers had complied with tax obligations or not. Therefore, every seller is independently responsible for ensuring compliance with tax regulations irrespective of prior transactions involving those goods. This ruling underscored an important principle regarding indirect taxation where responsibility cannot be passed on to subsequent buyers but rests solely on each individual seller involved in separate transactions.

In the dissenting opinion of Stevenson v. United States, 1895, Justice Brewer argued that the court had erred in its interpretation of "malice aforethought," a key element in defining murder under federal law. He contended that malice aforethought should not be presumed simply because a homicide occurred but must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by evidence showing an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm. In this case, he believed there was insufficient evidence to prove such intent on Stevenson's part and thus his conviction for murder was unjustified. Furthermore, Justice Brewer criticized the majority for failing to provide clear guidance on what constitutes sufficient proof of malice aforethought which could lead to arbitrary and inconsistent application of the law in future cases.