The U.S. Supreme Court case Wehrman v. Conklin in 1894 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the validity of certain patents issued by the United States government. The plaintiff, Wehrman, claimed that he had purchased lands from individuals who had received them as military bounty land warrants under an act of Congress in 1855. However, these lands were also claimed by Conklin based on patents granted to him directly by the U.S government at later dates for his services during Indian hostilities in Oregon and Washington territories between 1855-56. The court ruled against Wehrman stating that there was no evidence proving any fraud or mistake made when issuing those patents to Conklin. It held that once a patent is issued it becomes "incontestable" unless declared void due to fraudulent practices or mistakes committed while granting it; neither of which could be proven here. Therefore, despite having bought the disputed lands from previous owners with valid claims according to an earlier law, Wehrman's claim was deemed invalid because subsequent grants (patents) given directly by the US Government superseded prior private transactions.

In the dissenting opinion for Wehrman v. Conklin, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which invalidated an election due to fraudulent votes - was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that while there were indeed fraudulent votes cast in this particular election, these should not have been enough to invalidate the entire process. They contended that only those specific ballots proven beyond reasonable doubt as fraudulently cast should be discarded and not count towards the final tally; however, all other votes must remain valid and counted accordingly. This approach would ensure fairness by punishing only confirmed instances of wrongdoing without penalizing innocent voters or undermining their constitutional right to vote. Furthermore, they expressed concern over setting a dangerous precedent where any allegations of fraud could potentially nullify elections entirely even if most ballots are legitimate.