In the case of New Orleans v. Emsheimer in 1900, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and tax obligations. The city of New Orleans had sold a piece of land owned by Mr. Emsheimer due to unpaid taxes, which was then bought by the city itself. Later, when Mr. Emsheimer attempted to reclaim his property after paying off his debts, he discovered that it had been resold by the city without proper notice given to him as required under Louisiana state law at that time. The court held that this action violated Mr.Emsheimer's Fourteenth Amendment rights - specifically those related to due process and equal protection under law - because he wasn't provided with adequate opportunity or notification regarding redemption before resale occurred. Therefore, despite acknowledging cities' need for efficient tax collection methods (including selling delinquent properties), they also emphasized individuals' constitutional protections against arbitrary government actions must be upheld too; hence ruling in favor of Mr.Emsheimer.

The dissenting opinion in the case of New Orleans v. Emsheimer argued that the city of New Orleans had no right to seize and sell property for unpaid taxes without providing adequate notice to the owner. The justice believed this violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that individuals be given an opportunity for a hearing before they are deprived of their property. In this particular case, it was noted that while notices were posted at two public places and published in a newspaper as required by law, these actions did not constitute sufficient notification because there was no evidence showing that Emsheimer knew about them or could have known about them. Therefore, he was denied his constitutional right to due process when his property was seized and sold without him being properly notified beforehand.