In the case of Smith v. Rainey in 1907, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Smith, argued that he was entitled to certain lands based on an old Virginia law which stated that if a person died without heirs or will, their property would revert back to the state. However, this law had been repealed by another statute before the death of his relative from whom he claimed inheritance. The defendant, Rainey (the executor of the deceased's estate), contended that under current Virginia law at time of death - which allowed for distant relatives to inherit when there were no direct descendants or will - they rightfully owned these lands. The court ruled in favor of Rainey stating that it is not retroactive application but rather prospective operation given to statutes as rule unless contrary intent appears; thus new legislation applied here because it was enacted prior to decedent’s demise and did not contain any provision making it applicable only after its passage date.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Smith v. Rainey argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Virginia law requiring racial segregation on passenger trains was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings and violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The dissenters contended that separate accommodations for black passengers were inherently unequal, as they were typically inferior in quality to those provided for white passengers. They also pointed out that such laws served no legitimate purpose other than to humiliate and degrade African Americans, thereby perpetuating racial prejudice and inequality. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that this was a matter best left to individual states, arguing instead that it was precisely these types of discriminatory practices which necessitated federal intervention in order to protect citizens' constitutional rights.