In the case of Ana Maria Sugar Company, Inc., v. Quinones (1920), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Puerto Rican court had jurisdiction over a dispute between two parties regarding sugar cane contracts. The plaintiff, Ana Maria Sugar Company, argued that it had exclusive rights to purchase all sugar cane grown on certain lands in Puerto Rico based on an agreement made with the defendant's predecessor-in-interest. However, when these lands were sold to Mr.Quinones -the defendant- he refused to honor this agreement and instead sold his crop elsewhere. The local courts ruled in favor of Quinones stating that under Spanish law (which was still applicable at that time) such agreements could not be enforced against third-party purchasers who bought without notice of them. On appeal however, the U.S Supreme Court reversed this decision holding that American common law principles applied instead which recognized such contractual obligations as binding upon subsequent purchasers if they have knowledge about them before buying. This ruling is significant because it marked one of many instances where American legal principles replaced existing Spanish laws following United States' acquisition of Puerto Rico after the Spanish-American War.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ana Maria Sugar Company, Inc., v. Quinones argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and legal principles. The dissenting justices believed that the lower court had correctly applied Puerto Rican law to resolve a dispute over property rights between two private parties. They disagreed with the majority's view that federal courts should have jurisdiction over such cases simply because they involve questions of federal law or policy. In their view, this approach undermined state sovereignty and disrupted traditional understandings of federalism by allowing federal courts to intervene in matters traditionally reserved for local authorities. Moreover, they contended that it created unnecessary confusion and uncertainty about which laws apply in different situations - an outcome contrary to one of the main purposes of having a legal system: providing clear rules so people can plan their affairs accordingly.