In the case of Dominguez de Guyer v. Banning in 1896, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Maria Dominguez de Guyer, claimed that she had inherited a piece of property from her father and sought to evict the defendant, William Banning who was occupying it. However, Banning argued that he held rightful title to the land based on an earlier grant made by Mexican authorities before California became part of United States territory following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The court ruled against Dominguez de Guyer stating that under US law at that time (the Act of March 3rd ,1851), all claims for lands in California which were derived from Spanish or Mexican grants needed to be presented for confirmation within two years after passage - something she failed to do so her claim could not stand.

The dissenting opinion in Dominguez de Guyer v. Banning argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which denied the plaintiff her claim on land granted by Mexico prior to California becoming part of the United States, was incorrect. The dissent contended that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between Mexico and U.S., which ended Mexican-American War in 1848, guaranteed protection for property rights existing at time of transfer. Therefore, it should have been honored irrespective of any subsequent legislation or legal interpretation by American courts post-annexation. Furthermore, they believed that previous decisions made by Supreme Court had set a precedent acknowledging such claims as valid under international law principles and treaty obligations; thus this case should not be an exception.