In the case of Jefferson et al. v. Fink et al., Administrators of Severs, et al., 1917, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that allowed for the seizure and sale of property owned by non-residents violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were residents of Kentucky who owned land in Indiana which had been seized and sold by county officials to pay delinquent taxes without providing notice or opportunity for hearing before taking action. They argued this constituted a violation of their constitutional rights. The court ruled against them, stating that while due process does require notice and an opportunity to be heard before deprivation of property can occur, these requirements are not absolute and may vary depending on circumstances such as nature & urgency among others. In this instance, it held that because tax laws serve public interest in maintaining government operations funded through taxation; they often necessitate swift action which might limit traditional forms of procedural safeguards like prior notice or hearing. Therefore, provided there is some form post-deprivation remedy available (like suing for damages), such actions do not necessarily violate due process clause even if they involve seizing & selling off properties belonging to non-resident owners without giving them any advance warning or chance to contest it beforehand.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Jeferson et al. v. Fink et al., Administrators of Severs, et al., argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation and application of legal principles related to property rights and inheritance laws. The dissenters believed that the lower court's decision should have been upheld because it was more consistent with established precedents regarding these issues. They also disagreed with how the majority interpreted certain facts and evidence presented during trial, arguing for a different understanding based on their own analysis. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential implications this ruling could have for future cases involving similar circumstances or disputes over property ownership and inheritance rights.