In the 1938 case Honeyman v. Jacobs et al., the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Mrs. Honeyman, was seeking to recover her late husband's estate which had been sold by his children from a previous marriage (the defendants). Her claim was based on an Oregon law that allowed widows to inherit their deceased spouse's real estate if they died without leaving a will. However, Mr. Honeyman did leave a will but it had not been probated within five years of his death as required by state law due to delays caused by litigation among family members. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs. Honeyman stating that although the will existed, its legal effect ceased when it wasn't probated within five years after Mr.Honeyman’s death according to Oregon law at that time; therefore he effectively died intestate (without validly disposing of his property via a Will), making Mrs.Honeyman eligible for inheritance under state statute.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Honeyman v. Jacobs et al., 1938, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring union membership as a condition for employment was an overreach of judicial power and violated individual rights. The dissent contended that this ruling effectively forced individuals into associations against their will, infringing upon their freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. Furthermore, it was argued that such laws could lead to discriminatory practices and create monopolies within industries by limiting competition from non-union workers. The dissent also expressed concern about potential abuse of power by unions who could exploit these laws for personal gain at the expense of both employers and employees.