In the United States v. Mottaz case of 1985, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Minnesota. The U.S government had granted parcels of land to railroad companies under an 1864 Act, but later claimed that it had mistakenly included certain lands within an Indian reservation. When these lands were sold to private parties (including Mottaz), the government filed suit to cancel the patents and deeds issued by mistake. The lower courts decided in favor of Mottaz due to statute limitations which prevented such suits after twelve years from when they could have been filed. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, this decision was reversed with a unanimous vote led by Justice John Paul Stevens who argued that since no one knew about this error until recently; thus, it would be unfair for time limits to apply here as they usually do in other cases involving property disputes or fraud claims against federal officials. Therefore, he concluded that Congress did not intend for those time restrictions found in general laws like Quiet Title Act's Section 2409a(f) - which governs most lawsuits challenging federal actions related to real estate transactions - should also cover situations where mistakes occurred during initial distribution process itself.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Mottaz, Justice O'Connor argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with both precedent and legislative intent. She contended that the Quiet Title Act (QTA) should not be interpreted to bar all claims challenging federal title to land, but rather only those seeking a declaration of superior title in favor of a plaintiff. The QTA’s statute of limitations should begin when an individual knows or has reason to know about the government’s claim, not from when it first arises. In this case, she believed Mottaz had no way of knowing about potential issues with her property until notified by the Bureau of Land Management years later; thus making her lawsuit timely filed within 12 years as required by law. By barring such suits outright under QTA regardless of knowledge or notice on part of plaintiffs like Mottaz would lead to unfair results and undermine Congress' intention behind enacting QTA - which is providing citizens a clear legal avenue for resolving disputes over real property titles against Federal Government.