In the case of Hammond v. Hopkins, 1891, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws in Kansas. The plaintiff, Hammond, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands based on an alleged will from his deceased relative. However, Hopkins argued that under Kansas law at the time of death (1876), no will could pass real estate unless it had been executed according to specific legal requirements which were not met in this case. The court agreed with Hopkins' argument and held that since there was no validly executed will as per Kansas law during the decedent's lifetime; therefore, upon his death intestate (without a valid will), his property passed by operation of state law rather than any purported testamentary document.

In the dissenting opinion for Hammond v. Hopkins, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting or fishing in Louisiana waters violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this clause guaranteed citizens of each state all privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens in other states, including access to natural resources such as fish and game. They contended that while states could regulate these activities to preserve resources or protect public safety, they could not outright ban non-residents from participating altogether. This interpretation would mean treating out-of-state residents differently than in-state ones which is against equal protection under law principle. Therefore, according to them, Louisiana’s law was unconstitutional because it discriminated against non-residents without sufficient justification.