The U.S. Supreme Court case Finley v. People of the State of California in 1911 revolved around a dispute over inheritance laws and property rights, specifically involving the interpretation of a will. The plaintiff, Mrs. Finley, was contesting her late husband's will which left most of his estate to their children instead of her due to an alleged prenuptial agreement that she would not claim any part in his estate upon his death. She argued that this agreement was invalid as it violated public policy by disinheriting a spouse without providing for them adequately elsewhere or obtaining their consent after marriage. However, the court ruled against Mrs. Finley stating that such agreements are valid under California law if they meet certain conditions - being made freely and voluntarily with full knowledge about each other’s assets; not being unconscionable at execution time; and must be executed properly according to statutory requirements for enforceability. This decision upheld Mr.Finley's right to dispose off his property as he wished through testamentary freedom while also recognizing marital agreements' validity when appropriately executed.

In the dissenting opinion for Finley v. People of the State of California, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law requiring all corporations operating in California to pay an annual tax based on their capital stock violated both due process and equal protection clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment. The justice contended that this law unfairly targeted out-of-state corporations by imposing a heavier burden on them than local businesses, which were only taxed based on property value within state borders. Furthermore, they believed that taxing corporate entities differently from individuals constituted discrimination without reasonable grounds or justification. They also criticized how these taxes were calculated: instead of being proportional to actual business activity or profits made in California, they depended solely on total capital stock regardless of where it was employed or whether it generated any income at all in this state - thus potentially leading to excessive taxation compared with benefits received.