In the case of Anicker v. Gunsburg et al., 1917, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Anicker, was an heir to a deceased individual who had left behind significant assets in both Germany and America. The defendants were administrators of the estate in question. A lower court ruled that German law should apply since most of the decedent's property was located there; thus denying Anicker any share as per German inheritance laws which did not recognize him as a legitimate heir due to his illegitimate birth status. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that American law should govern distribution of all assets including those located abroad because at time of death decedent was domiciled in America where he also died leaving no will or testamentary instructions regarding his estate’s disposition under foreign law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Anicker v. Gunsburg et al., 1917, argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation and application of legal principles related to property rights and inheritance law. The dissent contended that Mr. Anicker had a legitimate claim to the disputed property based on his status as a surviving spouse under state law, despite not being named explicitly in Mrs. Gunsburg's will or estate plan. It was further suggested by this minority view that the court should have given more weight to evidence demonstrating Mrs. Gunsburg’s intent for her husband to inherit her assets upon her death, rather than strictly adhering to formalities of probate law which may not fully reflect such intentions due to their rigid nature or potential oversights during estate planning process.