In the 1913 case Monson v. Simonson, the United States Supreme Court dealt with issues of property rights and inheritance laws. The dispute arose when a man named Ole Simonson died intestate in Minnesota, leaving behind real estate properties both within and outside the state. His widow claimed her dower right to one-third of all his lands as per Minnesota law, but this was contested by other heirs who argued that only local law should apply to out-of-state properties. The lower court ruled in favor of the widow but on appeal, it was reversed by the Supreme Court which held that each state has sovereignty over its own territory and therefore can determine how property within its borders is distributed upon an owner's death - regardless if he or she dies intestate elsewhere. Thus, for out-of-state land owned by a deceased person domiciled in another state at time of death (like Mr.Simonson), inheritance would be governed not by laws where they were last resident (Minnesota) but rather those where such land is located.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Monson v. Simonson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Minnesota law prohibiting non-residents from hunting for more than 30 days was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed that this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S Constitution, which guarantees citizens in each state all privileges and immunities granted to citizens in other states. They contended that hunting is a privilege extended to residents by their home state, so it should also be available equally to visitors from other states without any time restrictions imposed on them solely because they are non-residents. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that conservation efforts justified these restrictions; instead asserting such laws were discriminatory against out-of-state hunters and served no legitimate purpose related directly or indirectly towards preservation or propagation of game.