In the case of Nelson v. Moloney in 1898, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Nelson, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had acquired it through inheritance. However, the defendant, Moloney argued that he was actually the rightful owner because he bought it directly from its original owner before his death and prior to any potential inheritance claims by others. The court ruled in favor of Moloney stating that his purchase agreement took precedence over any subsequent claim made by heirs or purchasers from heirs as long as there were no fraudulent activities involved during this transaction process which could potentially invalidate such agreements under law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Nelson v. Moloney argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in its waters was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices 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 fishing is a common right shared by all U.S. citizens regardless of their residency status, thus making it an unjustifiable violation for one state to deny another citizen access to these resources based on their place of residence alone. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that conservation efforts justified such restrictions; instead asserting that any conservation measures should apply equally to both residents and non-residents alike without discrimination.