In the 1917 U.S. Supreme Court case, Denee v. Ankeny, Executrix of Ridpath, the court dealt with a dispute over an estate inheritance involving two wills and their interpretation. The decedent had made one will in Washington state and another in Indiana; both were admitted to probate after his death. The plaintiff was named as a beneficiary in the first will but not mentioned at all in the second one which led her to challenge its validity on grounds that it was procured by undue influence from other beneficiaries who stood to gain more under its terms than they would have under those of the first will. The trial court ruled against her claim but she appealed this decision up to the Supreme Court arguing that there should be no presumption of regularity for proceedings held outside of Indiana (where she lived) because such presumptions are only applicable within jurisdictions where courts can take judicial notice i.e., within their own jurisdictional boundaries. However, upon review, SCOTUS upheld lower court's ruling stating that while it is true courts cannot take judicial notice beyond their territorial limits - meaning they cannot presume facts about foreign laws or procedures without proof - this does not apply when dealing with judgments rendered by competent authorities since these carry full faith and credit across state lines per constitutional mandate thus making them immune from collateral attack unless proven void due to lack of jurisdiction or fraud.

The dissenting opinion in the case of DENEE v. ANKENY, EXECUTRIX OF RIDPATH (1917) is not readily available in public records or legal databases. This could be due to a number of reasons including that there was no recorded dissent for this particular case, or it may simply not have been digitized and made publicly accessible online. Therefore, a summary cannot be provided without access to the original court documents detailing any potential dissenting opinions from justices involved in this 1917 Supreme Court Case.