In the case of Baker v. Grice (1897), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas following the Mexican-American War. The plaintiff, Baker, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had received it as part of a grant from Mexico before Texas became part of the U.S., and thus his claim was valid under international law which respects pre-existing property rights after territory changes hands. However, defendant Grice argued that this particular grant was invalid because it hadn't been officially recorded by Spanish authorities at the time Texas gained independence from Spain and therefore wasn't recognized by subsequent Texan or American laws either. The court ruled in favor of Grice, stating that while generally true about respecting prior property rights during territorial transitions, each country has its own rules for validating those claims - and both Spain's requirement for recording such grants and America's policy to respect only those records were not met here.

In the dissenting opinion for Baker v. Grice, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax assessment on property in Texas owned by a non-resident of the state violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that there should be no difference in how residents and non-residents are taxed, as long as they own property within the state. They also disagreed with the majority's view that notice via newspaper publication was sufficient for taxing out-of-state landowners, arguing instead that personal notification is necessary to meet due process requirements. Furthermore, they contended that this case had implications beyond taxation issues; if states could discriminate against nonresidents in one area (taxation), then what would stop them from doing so in others? Thus, according to these justices' interpretation of constitutional law and principles of fairness, all individuals - regardless their residency status - should be treated equally under state laws.