The Plattsburgh case was a dispute between the United States and Marino, a claimant. The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not the government could take possession of land that had been granted by New York State to private individuals before it became part of the United States. The court held that since there was no federal law in place at the time when New York made its grant, then it must be assumed that Congress did not intend for such grants to be disturbed by subsequent legislation. Therefore, Marino's claim should stand as valid and he should retain his rights over his property. This decision established an important precedent regarding state-granted lands within newly acquired territories becoming part of the US; namely, if there is no federal law in place at the time when states make their grants then those grants will remain valid even after they become part of US territory.

In the case of The Plattsburgh, Marino, Claimant, the dissenting opinion was that the court should not have dismissed Marino’s claim. The majority had ruled that since a prior decision in 1817 had established a boundary line between New York and Vermont which did not include Marino's land as part of New York State, his claim to ownership could not be recognized. However, the dissent argued that this prior ruling was based on an erroneous survey and thus should not be binding on subsequent decisions regarding title to property. Furthermore, it noted that there were other evidence presented by both sides which supported their respective claims and so it would have been more appropriate for these facts to be weighed before any judgement was made. In conclusion then, while recognizing the authority of precedent set by previous rulings from higher courts such as this one in 1817 ,the dissent felt strongly enough about this particular case to argue against dismissal without further consideration being given to all relevant evidence first.