In the 1902 case of Grin v. Shine, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Mrs. Grin, was an heir to her deceased husband's estate which included properties in California and Nevada. However, Mr. Shine claimed ownership of these properties based on a will allegedly written by Mr. Grin before his death that left everything to him instead of his wife. The court had to determine whether or not this will was valid under California law since it wasn't properly witnessed as required by state statute at that time; if invalid then Mrs.Grins' claim would be upheld based on community property laws in both states where all assets acquired during marriage are equally owned by both spouses. Ultimately,the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs.Grin stating that even though there were discrepancies between different state laws regarding witnessing requirements for wills,this did not invalidate her right as a surviving spouse under community property principles.The court also noted how important it is for individuals drafting their own last testamentary documents (wills)to ensure they comply fully with legal formalities so as to avoid future litigation like this one.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Grin v. Shine, 1902, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-citizens from owning property was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against individuals based on their citizenship status. They contended that property rights are fundamental and should not be denied to anyone regardless of their nationality or immigration status. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on foreign investment and international relations if such laws were allowed to stand.