The U.S. Supreme Court case Blythe v. Hinckley in 1900 revolved around the issue of inheritance and property rights, specifically involving California's laws on community property. The dispute began when Thomas H. Blythe died intestate (without a will) leaving behind a substantial estate that included real estate properties in San Francisco, California and Arizona Territory among other assets. His alleged illegitimate daughter Florence Blythe Hinckley claimed to be his sole heir under Californian law which recognized illegitimate children as legal heirs if acknowledged by their parents during their lifetime. However, Alice Edith Standeford also claimed to be the legitimate child of Mr.Blythe from an undisclosed marriage in England before he moved to America and hence entitled for inheritance under Arizona law which did not recognize illegitimate children as rightful heirs unless legitimized through subsequent marriage of their parents. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ms.Hinckley stating that since most part of Mr.Blythe’s wealth was accumulated while he resided in California where both marriages were unrecognized due to lack of evidence; it would follow Californian community property laws thereby recognizing Ms.Hinckley as the lawful heir.

In the dissenting opinion for Blythe v. Hinckley, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Mr. Hinckley was flawed due to its interpretation of California law regarding land inheritance rights. The dissenting justices believed that Mrs. Blythe had been unfairly denied her rightful claim as an heir to her late husband’s estate and disagreed with the majority's view on how community property laws should be applied in this case. They contended that under California law, half of Thomas H.Blythe’s property should have gone directly to his daughter Florence upon his death because she was a legitimate child born during marriage, while the other half would go through probate where Mrs.Blyth could make claims against it as a surviving spouse or creditor.The dissent also criticized the majority for not considering certain evidence which they felt supported Mrs.Blyth's claim.They concluded by expressing their belief that justice had not been served by denying Mrs.Blyth what they saw as her lawful right to inherit from her husband.