In the 1907 case of Notley v. Brown, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Hawaii following its annexation by the U.S. The plaintiff, Notley, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through adverse possession under Hawaiian law prior to annexation and sought to prevent defendant Brown from ejecting him from those lands. However, the court ruled against Notley on grounds that his claim was not valid under existing laws at the time of annexation. The court held that upon Hawaii's incorporation into U.S., all private property rights were determined according to Hawaiian law as it stood at moment of annexation; thus any changes made after would not affect these rights retrospectively. Therefore, since adverse possession did not confer absolute title under pre-annexation Hawaiian law but merely a life estate revocable by true owner or their heirs (which was Brown), Notley’s claim failed.

In the dissenting opinion for Notley v. Brown, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on personal property held outside of Hawaii by Hawaiian residents violated principles of fairness and equality under law. The dissenting justices contended that this ruling essentially allowed double taxation, as these individuals were already paying taxes in the jurisdictions where their property was located. They also pointed out inconsistencies with previous rulings which had established that states could not impose taxes on properties located beyond their borders. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on interstate commerce and investment if such extraterritorial taxation practices became widespread. Ultimately, they believed that upholding this tax represented an overreach of state power at the expense of individual rights.