In the 1933 case Gibbes v. Zimmerman et al., the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in South Carolina that had been sold for unpaid taxes during World War I. The plaintiff, Gibbes, claimed that he was not given proper notice of tax delinquency or sale and therefore his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. The defendants argued they had fulfilled their obligations by posting public notices and sending mail to an address provided by Gibbes himself. The court ruled in favor of Zimmerman and others, stating that while individual notification is required as far as practicable when personal property is involved, real estate properties are different because they are fixed locations which can be easily found; hence publication suffices for notice purposes. Furthermore, it was noted that there were no allegations suggesting any deliberate attempt to mislead or defraud on part of the state officials who carried out these procedures.

In the dissenting opinion for Gibbes v. Zimmerman, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold South Carolina's legislative apportionment scheme violated principles of equal representation. The dissent contended that this ruling allowed a minority of state residents to exercise control over the legislature, thus undermining democratic governance and violating citizens' rights under both federal and state constitutions. They believed that every citizen should have an equal voice in government regardless of where they live within a given state, and any deviation from this principle would lead to unfairness and inequality. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority’s view which upheld unequal distribution based on geographical considerations rather than population equality.