In the 1913 Supreme Court case Roller v. Murray, a dispute arose over the validity of a will and testament. The testator was an elderly woman who had left her estate to various family members, but one of her sons contested the will on grounds that his mother lacked mental capacity at the time she made it due to senility and undue influence from other relatives. After examining evidence presented by both sides, including medical testimony about the deceased's mental state near her death, as well as testimonies from witnesses familiar with her behavior during that period, lower courts ruled in favor of upholding the will's validity. However, upon appeal to higher courts including eventually reaching Supreme Court level; they all affirmed previous rulings stating there wasn't sufficient proof showing lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence when making said will. Therefore concluding that despite old age or physical weakness doesn't necessarily mean someone is incapable mentally for creating valid legal documents like a last Will & Testament unless proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.

In the dissenting opinion for Roller v. Murray, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Virginia law requiring non-residents to pay a higher fee than residents for hunting licenses infringed upon citizens' constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated both the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against out-of-state hunters. They contended that hunting is not merely a privilege granted by individual states but rather an inherent right of all American citizens, regardless of their state residency status. Therefore, they concluded that any legislation imposing discriminatory fees on non-resident hunters should be deemed unconstitutional.