In the case of Latta v. Granger (1896), the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance rights. The plaintiff, Latta, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands in Oregon under his deceased father's will. However, these lands were already occupied by settlers who had purchased them from the state of Oregon before they were officially surveyed by the federal government. The defendant, Granger, represented these settlers' interests. The court held that although there may have been irregularities in how Oregon sold unsurveyed public lands to settlers prior to their official surveying by federal authorities; this did not invalidate those sales or give rise to claims against such properties once they had been surveyed and patented by the U.S Government. Therefore, despite any potential claim Latta might have had through his father's will over these disputed territories; it could not supersede or nullify existing property rights acquired legally through purchase from State authorities even if done so prematurely according to Federal standards.

In the dissenting opinion for Latta v. Granger, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on commercial brokers violated principles of interstate commerce. The dissenting justices believed that this taxation unfairly burdened out-of-state businesses and hindered their ability to compete with in-state companies. They contended that such taxes should be considered unconstitutional as they interfere with free trade among states, which is protected by the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on national unity if individual states were allowed to impose discriminatory taxes against non-residents or businesses from other states.