In the case of Stoll v. Gottlieb, a dispute arose over a piece of real estate in Washington D.C., which was sold at auction due to unpaid taxes. The plaintiff, Stoll, claimed that he had not received proper notice about the tax sale and therefore it should be considered invalid. He argued that his constitutional rights were violated as he was deprived of his property without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that while direct notice is preferable when possible, publishing public notices in newspapers or other means can also satisfy requirements for due process if direct notification isn't feasible or practical. In this particular case, since there were no known addresses for any owners on record at time of sale and reasonable efforts had been made to notify all interested parties through publication in local newspapers; these actions constituted sufficient notice under law.

In the dissenting opinion for Stoll v. Gottlieb, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law prohibiting non-residents from serving as executors of estates contradicted previous rulings and violated constitutional principles. The dissent contended that this law discriminated against out-of-state citizens without any substantial justification, thereby violating their privileges and immunities under Article IV of the Constitution. It also pointed out inconsistencies in how such laws were applied across different states, which could lead to confusion and unfair treatment. Furthermore, it suggested that upholding such laws would encourage other states to enact similar discriminatory legislation against non-residents.