In the 1901 case of Murphy v. Utter, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington state. The plaintiff, Murphy, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through preemption rights under federal law and filed suit against Utter for trespassing on his property. However, the defendant argued that he was not guilty because at the time of alleged trespassing, there were no valid preemption claims on record for this particular piece of land. The lower court ruled in favor of Utter and dismissed Murphy's claim. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision upon appeal by stating that although federal law did grant individuals like Murphy certain preemptive rights to unclaimed public lands if they met specific conditions (like settling or improving it), these rights could not be enforced until an official declaration was made by a Land Office establishing their validity. Until such declaration occurred - which hadn't happened yet when Utter allegedly trespassed - any preemptive claim would remain "inchoate" (not fully formed or developed) and thus insufficient as basis for legal action against others who might also use or occupy said land.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Murphy v. Utter argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on inheritance was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed that this tax violated the constitutional prohibition against direct taxes without apportionment among states according to their population, as outlined in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S Constitution. They contended that an inheritance tax is essentially a direct tax on property and should therefore be subject to apportionment rules. Furthermore, they asserted that allowing such a tax could potentially lead to abuse by enabling Congress to impose other types of direct taxes without adhering to these same rules - something they felt would undermine fundamental principles of federalism and state sovereignty.