In the case of Calaf y Fugurul v. Calaf y River (1913), the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute over inheritance rights under Puerto Rican law. The plaintiff, Maria Luisa Calaf y Fugurul, claimed that she had been wrongly denied her rightful share of an estate left by her deceased father because his will had not been properly executed according to local laws in Puerto Rico at the time of his death in 1898. She argued that this violated her constitutional right to equal protection under the law. The defendants were other heirs who stood to benefit from upholding the validity of their father's will as it was written and executed before Spain ceded control over Puerto Rico to America following Spanish-American War in 1898. The court ruled against Maria Luisa, finding that although there may have been irregularities with how her father's will was handled after he died, these did not rise to level constituting a violation of equal protection clause since they didn't involve any discriminatory treatment based on race or nationality but rather stemmed from unique circumstances surrounding transition period when American legal system replaced Spanish one.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Calaf y Fugurul v. Calaf y River argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the appeal was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were significant legal questions at stake, including issues related to property rights and inheritance laws under Puerto Rican law, which warranted a full hearing by the Supreme Court. They contended that dismissing this case without fully examining these complex legal matters undermined not only the rights of those involved in this particular dispute but also potentially impacted future cases involving similar issues. Therefore, they disagreed with their colleagues' decision to dismiss on procedural grounds rather than addressing these substantive legal concerns.