The Fleitas v. Richardson case in 1892 revolved around a dispute over land ownership in New Orleans, Louisiana. The plaintiff, Mrs. Fleitas, claimed that she was the rightful owner of certain property based on an alleged will from her late husband's uncle who died intestate (without leaving a valid will). She argued that under Spanish law applicable at the time of Louisiana's acquisition by the United States, such verbal bequests were legally binding and thus should be recognized under U.S law as well. However, Mr. Richardson contested this claim stating he had purchased the property from other relatives of Mrs.Fleitas' deceased husband who also had legal rights to it. The Supreme Court ruled against Mrs.Fleitas asserting that while Spanish civil laws may have been operative during Spain’s rule over Louisiana and for some period after its cession to France and then to America; they ceased being effective once American common law took effect following Louisiana’s statehood admission into Union in 1812.The court held that any claims or rights arising out of transactions occurring post-1819 must conform with American jurisprudence rather than foreign laws.

The dissenting opinion in the Fleitas v. Richardson case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly consider maritime law and its implications on this case. The dissenting justices believed that, under maritime law, a ship owner is not liable for damages caused by an incompetent crew member if they had no reason to believe the crew member was unfit at the time of hiring. In this particular case, there were no indications or warnings about any incompetence prior to hiring Mr. Fleitas as captain of their vessel; therefore, according to these justices' interpretation of maritime law, Richardson should not be held responsible for his actions leading up to and during the collision with another vessel which resulted in significant damage.