The Clarke v. Larremore case in 1902 revolved around a dispute over the distribution of an estate. The decedent, who died intestate (without leaving a will), had property both within and outside the state of New York. The administrators of his estate paid off debts and distributed assets according to New York law, which did not recognize common-law marriages. However, one claimant argued that she was entitled to part of the estate because she had been married to the decedent under common-law marriage rules in Colorado where they resided together for some time before moving back to New York. The U.S Supreme Court ruled against her claim stating that while Colorado's laws recognized their relationship as a lawful marriage, it could not be considered valid in states like New York where such relationships were deemed illegitimate unless formally legalized through marriage ceremonies or contracts as per local laws. Therefore, even though they lived together as husband and wife in another state with different marital laws, this did not entitle her any rights over his properties located elsewhere.

In the dissenting opinion for Clarke v. Larremore, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law prohibiting non-residents from practicing law in the state was unconstitutional. He believed it violated both the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. According to him, these provisions were designed to ensure equal treatment among citizens across states; therefore, any legislation discriminating against out-of-state residents should be deemed invalid unless there is a compelling public interest at stake. In this case, he did not see such an interest being served by barring qualified lawyers who live outside New York from practicing within its borders simply because they are non-residents.