In the 1914 case of Truskett v. Closse, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Truskett, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who was part Native American and therefore exempt from certain restrictions on selling land under federal law. However, the defendant, Closse argued that this exemption did not apply because it only covered lands allotted to tribal members before they became U.S citizens and this particular sale occurred after citizenship was granted. The court ruled in favor of Closse stating that once Native Americans were granted U.S citizenship their allotments lost their restricted status and thus could not be sold without complying with state laws regarding real estate transactions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Truskett v. Closse argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Closse, was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were significant errors made by the trial court and these mistakes had an impact on its judgment. Specifically, they pointed out that certain evidence presented during the trial should not have been admitted because it was irrelevant and prejudicial towards Truskett. They also disagreed with how damages were calculated for Closse’s loss as they felt it did not accurately reflect his actual losses suffered due to alleged breach of contract by Truskett. Furthermore, they contended that instructions given to jury members about their duties and responsibilities were misleading or incomplete which could have influenced their verdict unfairly against Truskett.