In the 1909 Supreme Court case Fall v. Eastin, a dispute arose over property rights following a divorce settlement. The couple in question had divorced in Washington state, where the court awarded Mrs. Eastin their Nebraska-based property as part of her alimony agreement. Mr. Fall subsequently purchased this land from Mr. Eastin and sought to evict Mrs.Eastin based on his new ownership claim. However, when the case reached the Supreme Court, it was ruled that under full faith and credit clause of U.S Constitution (Article IV), Washington's decree could not force Nebraska to alter its own laws regarding real estate transfers - which required both spouses' consent for validity during marriage or upon divorce unless otherwise specified by local law. Therefore, since Nebraska did not recognize such unilateral transfer of real estate interest without consent from both parties involved at time of transaction (which wasn't obtained here), it didn't have to enforce Washington's ruling that gave sole ownership rights to Mrs.Eastin post-divorce; thus making Mr.Fall rightful owner instead due to his subsequent purchase from ex-husband.

In the dissenting opinion for FALL v. EASTIN, Justice Harlan argued that a state's power to regulate property within its borders does not extend to overriding federal law or court decisions. He contended that the Nebraska statute in question, which prohibited non-residents from removing fixtures from mortgaged land without consent of the mortgagee, was unconstitutional as it conflicted with a prior decree by a federal court allowing such removal. Harlan maintained that when there is conflict between state and federal laws regarding property rights, precedence should be given to federal law under the Supremacy Clause of U.S Constitution. Therefore, he disagreed with majority’s decision upholding Nebraska’s statute over Federal Court order.