In the 1908 case United States v. Marvin, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a matter concerning land ownership and property rights. The defendant, Mr. Marvin, had purchased land from an individual who had acquired it under a Swamp Land Grant Act that transferred federally owned swamp lands to states so they could be drained and made useful for agriculture or other purposes. However, this particular piece of land was later discovered to contain valuable phosphate deposits which led to its reclassification as mineral land by federal authorities - thus making it ineligible for transfer under the Swamp Land Grant Act in their view. The government sued Marvin seeking return of the property arguing that since minerals were found on it after its sale, it should not have been included in such grants because they did not cover mineral lands. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument ruling in favor of Mr. Marvin stating that when he bought his plot there was no indication or knowledge about any phosphate deposits hence he couldn't have known about its potential value as mineral land at time of purchase; therefore he acted in good faith while buying what seemed like ordinary swampland then but turned out to be much more valuable later due to unforeseen circumstances beyond anyone's control.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Marvin case of 1908 was not explicitly stated, as court records show a unanimous decision without any recorded dissents. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had jurisdiction over crimes committed on Native American reservations, even if both parties involved were non-Native Americans. This ruling upheld Marvin's conviction for manslaughter by a lower court and established an important precedent regarding federal versus state jurisdiction in such cases.