In the case of Lanham, Administrator of Lanham, et al. v. McKeel (1916), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a will that had been admitted to probate in one state should be recognized and enforced in another state where real estate property mentioned in the will was located. The testator's domicile at death played a crucial role in this decision-making process. In its ruling, the court held that full faith and credit must be given by each state to public acts, records, and judicial proceedings from other states as per Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution; however, it also noted an exception for cases involving land titles situated within their borders - these remain under exclusive control of individual states' laws regardless if they conflict with those from another jurisdiction where a decedent last resided or his/her personal property is being administered posthumously.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Lanham, Administrator of Lanham, et al. v. McKeel argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and legal principles regarding property rights and inheritance laws. The dissenting justices believed that a person should have full control over their property during their lifetime, including the right to determine who will inherit it after they die. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of state law which allowed for an individual’s estate to be divided among heirs without regard for any existing will or testamentary instructions if certain conditions were met (such as dying intestate). This view held by the dissenters emphasized respect for personal autonomy and private property rights above all else.