The Supreme Court case Heald et al., Committee of the Person and Estate of Peters, v. District of Columbia in 1920 revolved around a dispute over inheritance tax. The decedent, a resident of Washington D.C., left an estate that included stocks in corporations outside the district. The executors argued that these stocks were not subject to taxation by D.C as they were located outside its jurisdictional boundaries. However, the court ruled against this argument stating that for purposes of taxation, personal property has no situs other than at the domicile (residence) of its owner unless it is accompanied by actual physical presence elsewhere with intention on part of owner to remain there indefinitely or permanently. Therefore, even though physically located elsewhere at time death occurred those shares could be taxed under laws applicable within District where deceased was domiciled.

In the dissenting opinion for Heald et al., Committee of the Person and Estate of Peters, v. District of Columbia, it was argued that the court's decision to uphold a law allowing involuntary commitment without trial violated constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling contradicted previous decisions by the Supreme Court which had established due process protections for individuals facing involuntary commitment. They contended that these protections should not be suspended simply because an individual is deemed mentally ill or incompetent. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power under such laws and emphasized the importance of judicial oversight in protecting individual liberties against arbitrary state action.