The Sheckels v. District of Columbia case in 1917 revolved around a dispute over the legality of taxation on certain properties. The plaintiff, Mrs. Sheckels, was the surviving executrix of Mr. Sheckel's estate which included several pieces of property located within Washington D.C.'s boundaries that were leased to various government departments and agencies for use as office buildings or other purposes related to their operations. She argued that these properties should be exempt from local taxation because they were being used by federal entities for public purposes, thus falling under the constitutional provision prohibiting states from taxing federal property or activities. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with her argument stating that while it is true that states cannot tax federal property directly; this prohibition does not extend to situations where private individuals own real estate and lease it out to governmental bodies - even if those are part of the Federal Government itself. Therefore, Mrs.Scheckels' claim was rejected and she was required to pay taxes on all her properties regardless whether they were rented out to government agencies or not since ownership remained in private hands (hers), making them subjectable for local taxation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sheckels v. District of Columbia argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant laws regarding property rights. The dissent contended that Mrs. Sheckels, as a surviving executrix, had a legal right to claim damages for an alleged trespass by the city on her late husband's land. They believed that Mr. Sheckel’s death did not extinguish this right and his widow could pursue it on behalf of his estate under existing inheritance laws which allowed widows to inherit their husbands' properties along with any associated claims or liabilities attached thereto. They also disagreed with the majority view about whether there was sufficient evidence presented at trial proving trespass by the city; they felt there was enough proof showing unauthorized use of Mr.Scheckel’s land by D.C., thus constituting trespass. Finally, they criticized what they saw as inconsistencies in how similar cases were being decided across different jurisdictions due to varying interpretations of common law principles related to property rights and inheritance matters - something which according them undermined predictability and fairness within judicial system itself. In conclusion, while respecting differing views held by other justices, those who dissented firmly believed justice wasn't served correctly in this particular instance based upon their understanding & interpretation of applicable laws involved here.