In the case of Washington v. Opie, 1891, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Washington state. The plaintiff claimed that they had purchased the property from an individual who had received it as part of a treaty with local Native American tribes. However, this claim was disputed by another party who argued that they were entitled to the land under federal law because it was public domain at the time of their application for purchase. The court held that although treaties between Native American tribes and U.S government did not explicitly grant or deny rights to sell lands granted through them, such sales could be considered valid if there was no explicit prohibition against them in those treaties or other laws governing tribal relations at that time. Therefore, since there wasn't any specific restriction preventing sale of these lands by individuals receiving them via treaty agreements with native tribes during relevant period when plaintiff's predecessor bought said property from its original recipient under one such agreement; his title thereto should be recognized as legitimate despite defendant's subsequent attempt to acquire same parcel through regular public domain purchase process.

In the dissenting opinion for Washington v. Opie, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Mr. Opie was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of existing laws and regulations related to land ownership rights. The dissenters believed that Mr. Washington had a valid claim on the disputed property based on his compliance with all necessary legal procedures and requirements at the time he initially acquired it, including payment of taxes and other relevant fees associated with maintaining possession over several years. They also disagreed with how certain evidence presented during trial proceedings were evaluated by both lower courts before reaching their final verdicts against him, which they felt unfairly disadvantaged his case from being properly considered under fair judicial standards.