The U.S. Supreme Court case Morrison v. Watson in 1893 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the interpretation of a will. The plaintiff, Morrison, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands based on the terms of his grandfather's will which had been executed many years prior. However, Watson disputed this claim arguing that according to Alabama state law at the time when the will was written (which stated that grandchildren could not inherit property if their parent was still alive), Morrison did not have any legal right to these lands as his father was alive when his grandfather died. Morrison countered by stating that since Alabama had changed its laws regarding inheritance after his grandfather’s death but before he himself tried claiming it, those new laws should apply instead - thus making him eligible for inheritance despite having a living parent at the time of his grandparent's death. However, upon reviewing all arguments and evidence presented during trial proceedings along with relevant state laws both past and present; The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Watson concluding that changes made to inheritance laws posthumously cannot be applied retroactively i.e., they do not affect pre-existing cases or situations such as this one where an individual passed away before said changes were implemented into law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Morrison v. Watson argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach of judicial power. The dissenters believed that it was not within their jurisdiction to decide on matters related to state taxation, which they saw as a clear violation of states' rights under federalism principles. They contended that if there were any issues with how taxes were being levied or collected, those concerns should be addressed by state legislatures rather than through federal court intervention. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications for future cases involving similar issues and warned against setting such precedent without careful consideration.