In the case of Miller v. Strahl (1915), the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Miller, was an heir to a piece of land in New York City that had been sold by his father's estate without his knowledge or consent. He argued that he should have received part of the proceeds from this sale due to his status as an heir. However, Strahl, who purchased the property from Miller's father's estate, claimed that he bought it in good faith and therefore had rightful ownership over it. The court ultimately sided with Strahl based on two key points: firstly because there was no evidence suggesting any fraudulent intent during the transaction; secondly because under New York law at that time - which stated if someone purchases real estate in good faith without knowing about potential claims against it then they are protected against such claims - meant Strahl could not be held liable for unknowingly buying disputed property. This ruling reinforced legal protections for innocent purchasers while also highlighting issues around inheritance laws and their impact on unsuspecting heirs.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Miller v. Strahl argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting for profit was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed that this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, which guarantees citizens of each state all privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens in other states. They contended that hunting for profit is a privilege protected under this clause and should not be restricted based on residency status. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such laws were necessary to protect game populations from overhunting, arguing instead that these concerns could be addressed through less discriminatory means such as licensing fees or bag limits applicable to both residents and non-residents alike.