In the case of Garber v. Crews et al., 1944, the United States Supreme Court examined whether a state law that allowed for the seizure and sale of property to satisfy tax liens violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Garber, argued that he was not given sufficient notice before his property was seized and sold by defendants Crews et al., who were acting on behalf of local taxing authorities in Florida. However, after reviewing previous rulings related to due process requirements in such cases, including Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., which established a standard for "notice reasonably calculated" to inform interested parties about legal actions affecting their interests; and Anderson National Bank v. Luckett which upheld states' power over unclaimed deposits as long as owners are adequately protected -the court ruled against Garber's claim stating that there had been no violation of his constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Garber v. Crews, the justice argued that the majority had incorrectly interpreted Louisiana's law regarding mineral rights and land ownership. The justice believed that under Louisiana law, a landowner retains all mineral rights unless they are explicitly sold or leased to another party. In this case, he felt that there was no clear evidence showing such an explicit transfer of rights from Garber to Crews et al., thus making their claim invalid. He also criticized the majority for relying on ambiguous language in previous contracts and legal documents to justify their decision rather than adhering strictly to state law as written. Furthermore, he disagreed with how much weight was given by his colleagues towards custom and usage in interpreting these laws instead of sticking closely with statutory interpretation principles.