In the case of Larson v. South Dakota in 1928, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and taxation. The plaintiff, Larson, was a non-resident owner of lands within South Dakota who argued that his property had been unfairly assessed for tax purposes at its full value while other properties were being assessed at lower rates. He claimed this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees all citizens equal protection under law. However, upon review by Justice Sanford and his colleagues on behalf of unanimous court decision, it was determined that there was no violation as long as all property within a particular class is taxed uniformly or equally without any discrimination against non-residents or their property outside such classes. Therefore, since there wasn't any evidence showing discriminatory treatment towards Larson's properties compared to others in same category/classification based on residency status alone; henceforth his claim lacked merit leading to dismissal by Supreme Court.

In the dissenting opinion for Larson v. South Dakota, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting corporate farming infringed upon constitutional rights and exceeded states' powers under the Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by unfairly discriminating against corporations in favor of individual farmers or partnerships. They contended that there was no rational basis for such discrimination as corporations could also contribute positively to agriculture without necessarily harming small-scale farmers or rural communities. Furthermore, they asserted that this prohibition might discourage investment in agriculture, hinder economic development and potentially violate interstate commerce clause by restricting out-of-state corporations from owning farmland within South Dakota. Thus, they disagreed with the majority's view about states having broad authority over their local affairs including agricultural policies.