In the United States v. McCandless case of 1892, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in California. The defendant, McCandless, claimed that he had purchased land from an individual who had received it as part of a Mexican Land Grant before California became part of the U.S., thus making his claim valid under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War and required respect for such grants. However, upon investigation by government officials, it was found that no such grant existed and therefore McCandless's title to this property was invalid. The court held that even if there were errors or omissions in these investigations they did not affect their final decision because they were not prejudicial to rights asserted by him under any lawfully issued patent from Mexico prior to its cession to US territory.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. McCandless, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying a land patent claim on grounds of fraud was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't enough evidence presented in the case to conclusively prove fraudulent intent by McCandless when he made his initial land claim application. They also disagreed with how much weight was given to certain pieces of evidence over others during trial proceedings and felt this unfairly influenced the final verdict against McCandless. Furthermore, they questioned whether some aspects of relevant law were correctly interpreted and applied in this case, suggesting potential legal errors may have occurred at trial level which should be reviewed and corrected upon appeal.