In the case of Turner v. Richardson, a dispute arose over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Turner, claimed that he had acquired the property through homesteading rights and filed for an injunction to prevent Richardson from asserting any claim on it. However, Richardson argued that he had purchased the land from its original owner before Turner's alleged settlement and thus held legal title to it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Richardson based on evidence showing his earlier purchase agreement with the original owner was valid under federal law at that time which allowed private sales of public lands after six months if no adverse claims were made against them by settlers or others during this period. Therefore, despite Turner's subsequent occupation and improvements made on the property as a settler under homestead laws did not entitle him to ownership since these actions occurred after Richardson’s lawful acquisition.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Turner v. Richardson, 1900, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting interracial marriage was fundamentally flawed. The dissenters believed that this ruling violated basic principles of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that marriage is a fundamental right for all individuals regardless of race and any law restricting this right based on racial classifications should be subjected to strict scrutiny - meaning it must serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve its goal. The dissenting justices found no such compelling interest here; instead they saw an attempt by the state to maintain racial purity through discriminatory legislation which they deemed unconstitutional. Furthermore, they criticized their colleagues' reliance on historical practices as justification for upholding racially discriminatory laws arguing that past societal norms should not dictate current constitutional interpretation.