In the case of Clarke v. Clarke in 1899, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a wife, who had been living separately from her husband for several years without any legal separation or divorce decree, could claim dower rights to his property after his death. The couple lived in Connecticut where Mr. Clarke acquired significant real estate assets during their time apart. After he died intestate (without a will), Mrs. Clarke sought to exercise her right of dower - a common law provision allowing widows to claim one-third life estate in all lands that their husbands owned during marriage. The court ruled against Mrs. Clarke's claims on two grounds: first, it held that she had abandoned her marital duties and thus forfeited any potential dower rights; secondly, it found that because Mr.Clarke’s properties were located outside Connecticut (in Washington D.C.), they were not subject to Connecticut's laws regarding spousal inheritance but rather those of Washington D.C., which did not recognize such abandonment as forfeiture of dower rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Clarke v. Clarke, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of international law and comity among nations. He contended that a divorce decree granted in one jurisdiction should be recognized by other jurisdictions if both parties were given adequate notice and opportunity to participate in proceedings, even if only one party was physically present. In this case, he believed Mrs. Clarke had been properly served notice of Mr. Clarke’s intent to divorce while she resided abroad and thus her rights were protected despite her absence from Connecticut during proceedings there. Furthermore, he emphasized that recognizing foreign decrees under such circumstances would promote harmony between different legal systems rather than encouraging individuals to forum shop for favorable laws or evade their marital obligations by moving across borders.