The Enriquez v. Enriquez case in 1911 revolved around a dispute over the validity of a will and testament. The testator, who was domiciled in Louisiana but died while temporarily residing in Mexico, left his estate to his illegitimate children instead of his wife. Under Mexican law, this was permissible; however, under Louisiana law where he held domicile status and owned property, it wasn't as illegitimate children were not recognized as legal heirs unless legitimized by subsequent marriage of their parents or an act of legislature. The Supreme Court ruled that the laws governing inheritance rights are determined by the decedent's domicile at death rather than temporary residence or location of assets - thus applying Louisiana's succession laws which invalidated bequests to unrecognized heirs (illegitimate children). Consequently, despite being named beneficiaries under Mexican law where the will was executed and probated initially, they did not inherit from their father’s estate due to conflict-of-laws principles applied by U.S courts favoring lex domicilii (law of domicile) over lex loci rei sitae (law where property is situated).

The dissenting opinion in the Enriquez v. Enriquez case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which granted Mrs. Enriquez an annulment on grounds of fraud due to her husband's concealment of his impotence prior to their marriage, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Enriquez had not committed fraud because he did not intentionally deceive his wife about his condition; rather, he himself was unaware of it until after they were married. They also pointed out that there is no legal precedent for granting an annulment based on physical incapacity unless it can be proven beyond doubt and existed at the time of marriage - something they felt hadn't been conclusively demonstrated in this case.