In the 1911 case of Peters v. Broward, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of landowners who had sued over property taxes levied by Florida's Broward County. The plaintiffs argued that they were being unfairly taxed because their lands were not properly assessed and thus, they were paying more than their fair share compared to other landowners in the county. They also claimed that some parts of their properties which should have been exempt from taxation due to being underwater or swampland, were still included in the tax assessment. The court agreed with these arguments and found that there was indeed an unequal distribution of tax burden among different property owners within Broward County due to improper assessments. Furthermore, it held that certain portions of the plaintiff’s lands should have been exempted from taxation as per state law since they fell under water bodies or swampy areas. This ruling set a precedent for future cases involving disputes over property tax assessments and exemptions based on geographical features.

In the dissenting opinion for Peters v. Broward, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and violated principles of federalism. He contended that it was not within the jurisdiction of a federal court to interfere in state criminal proceedings unless there were exceptional circumstances, such as a clear violation of constitutional rights or an abuse of power by state officials. In this case, he believed neither condition had been met; therefore, it should have remained under Florida's jurisdiction rather than being taken up by a federal court on habeas corpus grounds. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation regarding whether Peters' right to due process had been violated when his trial judge refused to grant him bail pending appeal after conviction for murder in Florida courts.