In the case of Ballmann v. Fagin in 1905, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Ballmann, was an heir to a deceased individual who owned land in Missouri. The defendant, Fagin, claimed ownership of this same piece of land through purchase from another party who had allegedly acquired it via tax sale proceedings. However, these proceedings were not properly recorded as required by law at that time. The court ruled in favor of Ballmann on grounds that there was no valid evidence proving that the alleged tax sale ever took place or followed due process according to state law requirements for such transactions. Therefore, since Fagin could not prove his legitimate acquisition and ownership of the disputed property through legal means recognized by both state and federal laws governing real estate transactions and inheritance rights; he lost his claim against Ballman's inherited right to own said property.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ballmann v. Fagin argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which allowed for the seizure and sale of property owned by a debtor who had moved out of state, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this violated due process rights as outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment because it did not provide sufficient notice or opportunity for hearing before depriving an individual of their property. They contended that simply posting a notice on the courthouse door and publishing it in local newspapers was insufficient if there were no reasonable expectation that these notices would reach their intended recipient. Therefore, they felt such actions could not be considered adequate notification under constitutional law.