In the case of Wilson v. North Carolina, 1897, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on an issue concerning a will and inheritance law in North Carolina. The plaintiff was a resident of New York who claimed that he had been unfairly denied his rightful share from his father's estate due to certain provisions in North Carolina state law which discriminated against out-of-state heirs. He argued this violated both the Privileges and Immunities Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, after reviewing these claims, the court upheld North Carolina’s laws regarding inheritance rights as constitutional. They found no violation of either clause because they concluded that there was no discrimination based on residence or citizenship status under those laws; instead it merely required physical presence at probate proceedings for all claimants regardless their residency status.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilson v. North Carolina, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence alone was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that there were too many uncertainties and potential explanations for the evidence presented in this case, making it insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They contended that while circumstantial evidence can be used effectively in some cases, its use should be limited and carefully scrutinized due to its inherent ambiguity. In their view, relying solely on such ambiguous proof could lead to wrongful convictions based on conjecture rather than concrete facts. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's ruling upholding Wilson's conviction because they felt it did not meet the high standard of proof required in criminal cases.