In the case of Scott v. Neely in 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Arkansas following the Civil War. The plaintiff, Scott, claimed that he had purchased and owned certain lands which were sold by commissioners under an act of Congress to enforce tax liens against property owners who supported the Confederacy during the war. However, these lands were also claimed by Neely through inheritance from his father who was one such supporter and whose properties were seized due to unpaid direct taxes levied by Congress during wartime. The court held that while it is true that all sales made for non-payment of these taxes are absolute and without right of redemption under normal circumstances; if there has been no proper notice given as required by law before sale or seizure then such sales are voidable at suit of owner within two years after peace is proclaimed between United States and Confederate states (which happened here). Therefore, since Neely's father did not receive adequate notice before his property was seized for back-taxes owed during Civil War times - despite him being deceased - this meant that title never legally passed out from their family into hands of new purchaser (Scott), thus ruling in favor of defendant.

In the dissenting opinion for Scott v. Neely, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its application to this case. He argued that while it is true that states cannot deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, it does not mean that every state law affecting rights and privileges must be subject to federal review. In his view, if a state court has jurisdiction over a matter and follows proper procedures in deciding it, then its decision should stand unless there is clear evidence of bias or prejudice against one party. The mere fact that an error may have been made in applying state laws does not constitute denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment as long as all parties had fair opportunity to present their cases before an impartial tribunal following established legal processes.