In the case of Yost v. Dallas County in 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and tax obligations in Texas. The plaintiff, Yost, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from Dallas County at a delinquent tax sale but later discovered that these lands were not subject to taxation as they belonged to an Indian tribe recognized by federal law. Consequently, he sought reimbursement for his purchase price and taxes paid on this property since its acquisition. However, the court ruled against him stating that it was his responsibility to investigate whether or not such lands were taxable before purchasing them at a delinquent tax sale; ignorance of facts which could have been known through due diligence does not constitute grounds for recovery under Texas law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Yost v. Dallas County, 1914, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Texas law requiring all cotton gins to be licensed was an overreach of state power and violated property rights. The dissenting justices believed that this licensing requirement placed an undue burden on small businesses and individuals who owned or operated cotton gins. They contended that such regulation should only apply if it served a clear public interest or protected against potential harm, neither of which they saw as being applicable in this situation. Furthermore, they expressed concern about the precedent set by allowing states to impose arbitrary restrictions on private enterprise without sufficient justification.