In the 1898 case of Blythe v. Hinckley, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a California law that allowed for property left by deceased individuals without heirs or wills to be given to the state was constitutional under federal law. The case arose after Thomas H. Blythe died intestate and without known heirs, leaving behind a substantial estate in San Francisco real estate holdings valued at over $4 million dollars (a significant sum at that time). Florence Hinckley claimed she was an illegitimate child of Mr. Blythe and thus his rightful heir; however, her claim was contested by others who also asserted they were related to Mr.Blythe as well as by the State of California which sought control over his assets based on its escheat laws. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ms.Hinckley, finding that while states have broad powers regarding inheritance laws within their borders, these powers are not absolute and must respect certain fundamental rights protected under federal law such as due process rights guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment . In this instance,the court found that California's escheat statute violated those protections because it did not provide sufficient notice or opportunity for potential heirs like Ms.Hinckley to assert their claims before transferring property ownership directly from decedents with no known legal successors directly into state control.

In the dissenting opinion for Blythe v. Hinckley, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which found in favor of Mrs. Blythe and against Mr. Hinckley regarding ownership rights over certain California properties - was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of Spanish law (which governed property rights in California before its annexation by the United States). The dissent maintained that under Spanish law, Mrs. Blythe had no legitimate claim to these lands as she did not meet necessary requirements such as residency or cultivation stipulated by this legal system for land grants; therefore, her late husband’s acquisition of said lands could not be deemed valid either since he obtained them through his marriage with her. It further contended that even if one were to accept Mr. Blythe's right over these properties based on American laws post-annexation, his failure to pay taxes should have led to their forfeiture long ago.