In the 1947 case of Shade v. Downing et al., the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Mrs. Shade, was contesting her late husband's will which left his estate to his children from a previous marriage rather than to her. She argued that under Ohio law she should have received at least half of his estate as surviving spouse despite what the will stated. The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Shade, stating that while Mr. Shade had indeed made provisions for his children in his will, he did not explicitly exclude or limit any provision for Mrs.Shade as required by state law to prevent her from claiming an intestate share (the portion of an estate given to closest relatives if no valid will exists). Therefore, she was entitled to claim this share regardless of Mr.Shade's intentions expressed in the will. This decision highlighted how important it is for individuals drafting their last testamentary documents such as Wills and Trusts be aware about specific requirements set forth by their respective state’s probate code so they can effectively carry out their wishes after death.

In the dissenting opinion for SHADE v. DOWNING ET AL., 1947, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from soliciting orders for magazine subscriptions without first obtaining a license and posting a bond was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this ruling violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by unduly burdenishing interstate commerce. They contended that such restrictions on out-of-state businesses were protectionist measures designed to favor local industries at the expense of those in other states, which is contrary to principles of economic union among states underpinning federalism in America. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s view that these regulations served public interest by protecting consumers against fraud or insolvency risks associated with out-of-state sellers; instead, they saw them as arbitrary barriers limiting competition and consumer choice.