In the case of Clark et al. v. Poor et al., 1926, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws in Washington D.C. The plaintiffs, heirs of Thomas H. Clark who died intestate (without a will), claimed that they were entitled to his estate as per District of Columbia law which stated that if an individual dies without issue or spouse, their parents would inherit before any siblings or other relatives. However, the defendants argued that since Thomas H.'s father had predeceased him and his mother had remarried after her husband's death but before her son’s death, she was not eligible to inherit under common law principles barring widows who remarry from inheriting their deceased children's estates. The court ruled in favor of the defendants stating that although local statute did provide for parental inheritance regardless of marital status at time of child’s death; it did not specifically override common-law rules against such inheritance by remarried widows thus those rules still applied.

In the dissenting opinion for Clark et al. v. Poor et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in its waters was unconstitutional and violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S Constitution. He contended that this clause guarantees citizens' fundamental rights across state lines, including their right to earn a livelihood by pursuing common occupations such as fishing. The justice believed that states should not have unrestricted power to discriminate against non-residents when it comes to these basic economic activities unless there is a substantial reason related directly with public interest or welfare which justifies such discrimination.