In United States v. Denvir, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The defendant, Denvir, was charged with violating a federal statute that prohibited the sale of liquor without a license. The indictment failed to allege that Denvir had not obtained a license, which was an essential element of the offense. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was insufficient to support a conviction. The Court reasoned that an indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the offense in order to give the defendant notice of the charges against him. The Court noted that the indictment in this case failed to allege the essential element of the offense, and thus, the conviction could not stand. The Court's decision in United States v. Denvir established the principle that an indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the offense in order to support a conviction. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important part of criminal law today.

In United States v. Denvir, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision made by the Commissioner of Patents in regards to patent rights. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction, as Congress had not given any authority for appeals from decisions made by the Commissioner. Justice Field dissented from this opinion and argued that Congress intended for there to be appellate review available when necessary and thus should be allowed in this case. He further noted that allowing appeals would help ensure fairness and accuracy in decisions regarding patents since they are so important economically and socially; if errors were found on appeal then those could be corrected without having to start over completely or wait until after all other avenues of relief were exhausted before being able to challenge them again. Ultimately, he concluded that denying appellate review would lead only serve injustice rather than justice which is why he disagreed with the majority's ruling on this matter.