The Supreme Court case of Allen v. Hanks was a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property. The plaintiff, Allen, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, Hanks, and that Hanks had no right to sell it. Hanks argued that he had the right to sell the property because he had inherited it from his father. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Allen, finding that Hanks had no right to sell the property because he had not obtained a deed from his father. The Court held that the deed was necessary to transfer ownership of the property, and that Hanks had not obtained one. The Court also found that Allen had acted in good faith when he purchased the property from Hanks, and that he was entitled to the property. The Supreme Court's decision in Allen v. Hanks established that a deed is necessary to transfer ownership of property, and that a person cannot sell property that they do not own. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is an important precedent in property law.

In the Supreme Court case of Allen v. Hanks, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be overturned. He argued that under existing precedent, there is no basis for holding an individual liable for failing to prevent another person from committing suicide. Furthermore, he noted that even if such liability were possible, it would not apply in this particular case because there was insufficient evidence to show any causal connection between the defendant’s actions and the victim’s death. In conclusion, Justice Scalia asserted that allowing individuals to be held liable for failing to prevent someone else from taking their own life would open up a Pandora's box of potential litigation with far-reaching implications on personal autonomy and freedom of choice.