In the case of United States v. Dickey et al., 1924, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The defendants, including Dickey and others, were oil companies who had leased lands from individual members of the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes for oil drilling purposes. These leases were made without approval from the Secretary of Interior which was required by law at that time for any lease on restricted Indian lands to be valid. The U.S government sued these companies claiming they unlawfully extracted oil from these lands and sought compensation for it. The court ruled in favor of the U.S government stating that under existing laws, only Congress or an authorized officer can grant permission to lease tribal lands; individuals cannot do so independently regardless if they are tribe members or not. Therefore, all leases obtained by defendants directly from tribe members were deemed invalid making their extraction activities unlawful as well.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Dickey et al., 1924, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government was flawed due to insufficient evidence presented at trial. The dissent contended that there was no clear proof showing an agreement between defendants with intent to commit fraud against the government or obstruct its functions, which is necessary for a conspiracy charge under federal law. Furthermore, it pointed out inconsistencies and contradictions within testimonies used by prosecution as key evidence against defendants, casting doubt on their credibility and reliability. It also criticized overreliance on circumstantial evidence without direct proof of fraudulent intent or actions taken towards achieving such purpose by accused parties involved in alleged conspiracy scheme.