In the case of A. Elliott Archer, et ux. v. Arlene L. Warner (2002), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a will that had been notarized but not witnessed could be considered valid under Virginia law, which requires two witnesses for a will to be legally recognized. The Archers were named as beneficiaries in an earlier version of Ms.Warner's will and contested its validity after she changed it without any witnesses present except for a notary public who also happened to be her attorney at the time of signing this new document. The court ruled against the Archers stating that while Virginia law does require two witnesses for a written testament, there is no explicit requirement that these individuals must witness each other sign or even have knowledge about their mutual roles during this process; hence they concluded that having one person acting both as legal counsel and official witness can satisfy state requirements if all parties involved are aware and consenting.

The dissenting opinion in the case of A. Elliott Archer, et ux. v. Arlene L. Warner argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to properly consider and apply relevant legal principles and precedents related to property rights and contractual obligations. The dissenters believed that the Archers had a legitimate claim over their land based on established real estate laws, which they felt were disregarded by the majority ruling in favor of Warner's right to access her property through an easement on Archer’s land without proper compensation or agreement from them first. They also disagreed with how certain facts were interpreted by the majority, arguing these interpretations skewed towards unfairly benefiting Warner at Archer’s expense.