In the case of Cuebas y Arredondo v. Cuebas y Arredondo in 1911, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws between family members. The plaintiffs were heirs to an estate who claimed that they had been wrongfully excluded from their rightful share of the inheritance by other relatives (the defendants). They argued that under Mexican law, which applied at the time when Texas was still part of Mexico, all children should have received equal shares of their parents' estates upon death. However, this principle conflicted with common law practices in Texas where wills could be used to distribute property unequally among heirs. The court ruled against the plaintiffs stating that although Mexican civil law may have governed at one point in history, it did not apply retroactively after annexation by United States and therefore could not affect distribution according to a validly executed will.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cuebas Y Arredondo v. Cuebas Y Arredondo, 1911, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of Mexican law. The dissenting justices believed that under Mexican law, which governed this particular property dispute as it originated before California became part of the United States, illegitimate children had no inheritance rights unless explicitly recognized by their father. In this case, they contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove such recognition occurred and thus disagreed with awarding any portion of the disputed estate to these claimants. They also expressed concern about setting a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances where proof may be even more tenuous or non-existent.