In the case of De Villanueva v. Villanueva in 1915, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over inheritance rights. The plaintiff, Maria de la Concepcion Gomez de Villanueva, claimed that she was entitled to an estate located in Florida which had been left by her deceased husband who died intestate (without a will). However, his brother and sister also laid claim to this property on grounds that they were closer relatives under Spanish law - as Spain previously governed Florida before it became part of the United States. The court ruled against Maria's claim stating that although she would have been considered next-of-kin under Spanish law if her husband had died while Spain still controlled Florida; however since he passed away after U.S acquisition of the territory and because there were no children from their marriage or any surviving parents for him at his death time, according to American common law rules governing intestacy succession then prevailing in Florida (which followed English common-law tradition), siblings are preferred over widows when distributing an intestate decedent’s real property.

The dissenting opinion in De Villanueva v. Villanueva argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which denied Mrs. De Villanueva her claim to her deceased husband's estate on the grounds of an alleged fraudulent marriage, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant issues with how evidence was considered and evaluated during trial proceedings. It emphasized that Mrs. De Villanueva should have been given more opportunity to present additional proof regarding the legitimacy of her marriage before being denied any rights or claims over Mr.Villaneuva’s property after his death.