In the case of Cory, Controller of California, et al. v. White, Attorney General of Texas, et al., 1981, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute between states over tax collection from inheritance taxes on intangible property (stocks and bonds). The decedent was a resident in California but had stocks in two Texas corporations. Both states sought to impose their respective inheritance taxes on these assets. The court ruled that both states could not tax the same intangible property; only one state can have jurisdiction for taxation purposes at any given time. The decision hinged upon an interpretation of constitutional law regarding interstate commerce and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. It concluded that while each state has sovereignty within its borders to determine how it will tax residents' estates or inheritances, this power does not extend beyond those borders without express consent by Congress or clear evidence that such taxation would not interfere with interstate commerce. Therefore, since there were no federal laws governing which state should collect inheritance taxes on intangibles like stocks and bonds when multiple jurisdictions are involved - as was true here - it fell to common law principles to resolve this issue: namely domicile rule where only domiciliary State may impose death transfer tax.

In the dissenting opinion for Cory v. White, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. He argued that this clause does not require a state to apply another state’s law when it contradicts its own public policy. In his view, California had every right to protect its citizens from insurance companies trying to avoid paying claims by incorporating in Texas where laws were more favorable for them. He believed that states should be able to regulate businesses within their borders without being forced to adopt other states' policies or regulations which may contradict their own interests or values.