In the case of Shellenbarger v. Fewell in 1914, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Shellenbarger, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who was not legally entitled to sell it because they were not its rightful owner. This person had obtained the property through a tax sale which was later deemed invalid due to improper procedures followed by local authorities during this process. As such, the original owners (the defendants) still held legal title to this land and sued for possession. The court ruled in favor of the defendants on grounds that their constitutional rights were violated when their property was sold without proper notice or opportunity for them to contest it - thus rendering any subsequent sales null and void as well. Furthermore, even though Shellenbarger acted in good faith believing he bought valid title; ignorance does not excuse his mistake nor grant him any special protection under law against claims made by true owners seeking recovery of their wrongfully taken possessions.

The dissenting opinion in the Shellenbarger v. Fewell case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting game violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizens of each state all privileges and immunities granted to citizens in other states. The dissenting justices believed that this clause should protect an individual's right to hunt regardless of their residency status, as it is a privilege enjoyed by residents within a given state. They contended that denying non-residents this right was discriminatory and unconstitutional, thus disagreeing with the majority ruling upholding Oklahoma’s law barring out-of-state hunters from hunting quail during certain periods when resident hunters could do so freely.