In Dull v. Blackman, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Pennsylvania law that allowed for the seizure and sale of property to satisfy tax debts violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The case arose when John Dull purchased land at a sheriff's sale after it had been seized from William Blackman for unpaid taxes. However, Blackman claimed he did not receive proper notice about his debt or impending property seizure as required by due process rights. The court ruled in favor of Dull, stating that while individual states have broad powers to levy and collect taxes, they must also provide adequate notification to taxpayers before seizing their properties over unpaid dues. In this particular instance though, it found that Pennsylvania’s method of notifying delinquent taxpayers—by posting notices on courthouse doors—was sufficient under the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling affirmed state governments' authority to enforce taxation laws within their jurisdictions while emphasizing their obligation towards ensuring taxpayer rights are protected during such processes.

The dissenting opinion in the Dull v. Blackman case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of maritime law. The dissent emphasized that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an independent contractor, especially when there is no evidence to suggest negligence or fault on part of the ship owner. It pointed out that under common law principles, liability only arises if there is a breach of duty or care - which was not proven in this case. Furthermore, it contended that imposing such liability would have far-reaching implications for maritime commerce and could potentially discourage investment and growth in this sector due to increased risks and costs associated with potential legal claims.