In the case of White v. Ewing, a dispute arose over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, White, claimed that he had purchased the property from one Mr. Pioche back in 1863 and subsequently paid all taxes on it until 1871 when Ewing allegedly wrongfully took possession of it. On his part, Ewing argued that he bought the same piece of land at a tax sale after White failed to pay taxes for two years (1871-72). He also maintained that he had been paying all subsequent taxes and was thus its rightful owner under adverse possession laws. The Supreme Court ruled against White stating there were no grounds to question the validity of tax deeds issued by state authorities or challenge their jurisdiction retrospectively unless they were proven fraudulent or void due to some procedural irregularity at inception which wasn't demonstrated here. Furthermore, even if such an argument could be made about unpaid taxes leading up to 1872 as per plaintiff's claim; any potential defects would have been cured by seven-year statute limitation under Californian law given defendant's continued occupancy since then.

In the dissenting opinion for White v. Ewing, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting wild game was unconstitutional. He contended that such laws violated citizens' privileges and immunities under Article IV of the Constitution by discriminating against out-of-state residents. Furthermore, he asserted that wildlife is not owned by any individual or government entity but rather held in trust for all people; therefore, no state has the right to exclude non-residents from hunting game within its borders. In his view, states can regulate hunting to preserve animal populations but cannot outright ban certain groups of people from participating altogether based on residency status.