In the 1897 case of Conde v. York, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Conde, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under an old Spanish grant which had been confirmed by the U.S government but never patented. However, these lands were already occupied and improved upon by other parties including defendant York who held them under preemption claims or homestead entries from the U.S government. The court decided in favor of York and others holding their titles through federal laws granting public lands for settlement and improvement (preemption or homesteading). It stated that while confirmation of a Spanish grant is equivalent to a patent issued after surveying process; it does not affect rights acquired by settlers under preemption or homestead laws before such surveying takes place.

The dissenting opinion in the Conde v. York case disagreed with the majority's ruling that a state law requiring all foreign insurance companies to deposit bonds before doing business was constitutional. The dissent argued that this requirement violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. They contended that it unfairly discriminated against out-of-state businesses by imposing additional financial burdens on them not required of local businesses, thus creating an unfair competitive advantage for domestic companies. Furthermore, they believed it infringed upon interstate commerce rights protected by federal laws and constitutionally granted to Congress alone to regulate.