In the 1942 case Jamison v. Texas, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over an inheritance tax. The plaintiff was a resident of Illinois who inherited property from her father in Texas and contested the state's right to impose an inheritance tax on non-residents. She argued that this violated both her Fourteenth Amendment rights (which guarantees equal protection under law) and interstate commerce laws. However, the court ruled against her, upholding Texas' right to levy such taxes on out-of-state inheritors of in-state property. The decision affirmed states' authority to manage their own fiscal affairs without federal interference unless there is clear violation of constitutional rights or federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Jamison v. Texas, the justice argued that there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the conviction. The defendant's guilt was largely based on circumstantial evidence and uncorroborated testimony from an accomplice, which should not have been enough to sustain a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, it was pointed out that certain pieces of key evidence were improperly admitted during trial proceedings without proper scrutiny or challenge by defense counsel. This included hearsay statements and prejudicial character references about the defendant which could have unduly influenced jury members in their decision-making process. Additionally, concerns were raised over procedural irregularities during trial including issues related to jury selection and instructions given by the judge which may have compromised fairness in adjudication process.