In the case of Van Gieson v. Maile in 1908, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Hawaii. The plaintiff, Van Gieson, claimed that he had rightful ownership of certain lands under a will executed by Keelikolani, who died in 1883. However, these lands were already conveyed to Princess Ruth and then passed onto Bernice Pauahi Bishop upon her death as per Hawaiian law at that time which allowed for such transfers without written deeds or formalities. After Mrs.Bishop's death, these lands went into the hands of defendant Maile through her husband Charles R.Bishop who was an executor and trustee under Mrs.Bishop's will. The court held that even though there might have been some irregularities with how Princess Ruth acquired those properties from Keelikolani’s estate initially; it did not affect subsequent transactions because they were done following due process according to existing laws back then. Therefore any claim against them would be invalid now after so many years (laches). Furthermore since Van Gieson failed to provide sufficient evidence proving his claims about fraudulent practices during initial transfer between Keelikolani and Princess Ruth; his lawsuit was dismissed.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Van Gieson v. Maile argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New Jersey statute imposing a tax on corporations based on their capital stock, including shares owned by non-residents and located out-of-state, was unconstitutional. The dissent contended that this law violated both the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause of the Constitution as it essentially allowed for double taxation - once by New Jersey where the corporation is incorporated, and again by another state where its property or business may be situated. This interpretation also disregarded previous rulings which held that states could not tax personal property located outside their jurisdiction simply because it belonged to a resident or domestic corporation. Furthermore, they believed such an approach would lead to confusion and conflict between states over taxing rights if universally adopted.