In the 1933 case of Elliot et al. v. Lombard, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws in Maine. The plaintiffs, who were heirs to a certain piece of real estate, argued that they should inherit it as per intestate succession laws after the death of their relative without any will or testament left behind. However, defendant Lombard claimed ownership based on an old deed from 1862 which was not recorded until 1928 - long after most parties involved had passed away. The lower court ruled in favor of Lombard but upon appeal by Elliot and others to the Supreme Court, it was held that due to Maine's "race-notice" statute (which protects bona fide purchasers for value without notice), Lombard could not claim title through an unrecorded deed against subsequent good faith purchasers or those claiming under them such as heirs or devisees like Elliot et al., thus reversing judgment for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Elliot et al. v. Lombard, 1933, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring all motor vehicles to be equipped with safety glass was an overreach of judicial power and infringed upon individual rights. The dissent contended that such regulation should fall under federal jurisdiction rather than being determined by each state individually as it pertains to interstate commerce. Furthermore, they believed this ruling set a dangerous precedent for future cases where states could potentially enact arbitrary laws under the guise of public safety without sufficient evidence or justification for their necessity or effectiveness. They also expressed concern about potential economic implications on vehicle owners who would bear the cost burden of retrofitting their cars with safety glass.