In the case of Webster v. Fall, Secretary of the Interior et al., 1924, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Webster, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from an individual who had received them under a Mexican grant before Texas became part of the United States. However, these lands were later classified as public domain by state authorities and sold to other parties. When Webster sought to assert his rights to this property against those who bought it from the state (the defendants), they argued that he was barred because he hadn't challenged their title within three years after it was issued - as required by a statute known as limitation law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Webster on appeal from lower courts' decisions against him. It held that since there was no evidence showing when or how information about defendants' claim reached him; therefore presumption couldn’t be made regarding his knowledge about such claims which would trigger start time for limitation period under said law.

In the dissenting opinion for Webster v. Fall, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the Secretary of Interior had no right to cancel a lease contract between an individual and the government without providing any reason or justification. He believed this action violated basic principles of fairness and due process under law, as it arbitrarily deprived individuals of their property rights without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves or challenge the decision in court. Furthermore, he contended that such unilateral actions by administrative officials could potentially undermine public confidence in governmental institutions and processes if left unchecked by judicial oversight.