In the case of De La Mettrie et al. v. De Gasquet James et al., the Supreme Court in 1926 dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws between American and French citizens. The plaintiffs, relatives of a deceased man named de la Mettrie, claimed that they were entitled to his estate under Louisiana law since he died without direct heirs or a will. However, the defendants (the decedent's mother and sister) argued that under French law - which should apply as de la Mettrie was domiciled in France at his death - they were rightful inheritors of his estate. The court ruled against the plaintiffs on two grounds: firstly, it found no evidence proving that de la Mettrie had changed his domicile from France to Louisiana; secondly, even if he had done so before dying intestate (without leaving a will), according to both jurisdictions' laws – i.e., Civil Code of Louisiana & Napoleonic Code – ascendants (parents) and descendants are preferred over collaterals like uncles/aunts/nephews/nieces etc., hence making defendants rightful inheritors anyway.

The dissenting opinion in the case of De La Mettrie et al. v. De Gasquet James et al., 1926, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying inheritance rights was incorrect and unjust. The dissenting justices believed that the plaintiffs had a legitimate claim to their father's estate, despite his having died intestate (without a will) in France while domiciled there. They contended that French law should not have been applied because it conflicted with American principles of justice and equity by disallowing illegitimate children from inheriting property from their biological parents under any circumstances. Instead, they felt U.S law should apply as it would allow for such an inheritance if paternity could be proven conclusively through evidence or acknowledgement by the deceased parent during his lifetime.