In the case of Fairfax Family Fund, Inc. v. California (1965), the Supreme Court dealt with issues related to taxation and property rights. The plaintiff, Fairfax Family Fund, Inc., a Virginia corporation that owned real estate in California, challenged the constitutionality of a California law which imposed an annual tax on foreign corporations owning property within its borders but not conducting any business there. The company argued that this was discriminatory against out-of-state businesses and violated both due process and equal protection clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed with Fairfax's claims and upheld the validity of California's law. It ruled that states have broad powers to levy taxes as they see fit unless it is clearly prohibited by constitutional provisions or federal laws; hence such state-imposed taxes do not necessarily violate due process or equal protection rights just because they affect non-residents differently than residents. This ruling affirmed states' authority over their own fiscal policies while also emphasizing fairness in interstate commerce regulations.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Fairfax Family Fund, Inc. v. California argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on out-of-state corporations violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from passing laws that unduly burden interstate commerce. The dissenters believed that by taxing an out-of-state corporation based on its total income - including income earned outside of California - rather than just its California-based income, the state was unfairly penalizing companies for conducting business across state lines and discouraging them from doing so in future. They also expressed concern about potential double taxation if other states followed suit and taxed these corporations based on their total national or global earnings as well.