The case of Domingo Diaz A., et al. v. Patterson in 1923 revolved around the issue of land ownership and property rights, specifically concerning oil reserves located on a piece of land in California. The plaintiffs, Domingo Diaz A., and others claimed that they were rightful owners to this tract of land due to their Mexican heritage and based on old Spanish or Mexican grants which predated California's statehood. They argued that these historical claims should supersede any subsequent American laws or regulations regarding property rights. However, the defendant, Patterson contested this claim stating he had legally acquired the disputed territory under U.S law after it became part of United States territory following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The Supreme Court ruled against Diaz and his co-plaintiffs by upholding previous rulings from lower courts which stated that once California became a U.S state post-1848 treaty; all lands within its boundaries fell under American jurisdiction including those previously owned by Mexicans who did not choose to retain their properties during transition period as per terms laid out in said treaty.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Domingo Diaz A., et al. v. Patterson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which denied citizenship to individuals born in Puerto Rico prior to 1899, was incorrect and unjust. The dissenters believed that this interpretation of the law contradicted previous Supreme Court rulings and violated principles of equal protection under the Constitution. They contended that all persons born within U.S territories should be considered citizens by birthright, regardless of when they were born or their parents' citizenship status at time of birth. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for failing to consider how its decision would affect thousands who had lived as American citizens for decades only now to be stripped off their rights due to an arbitrary cut-off date.