In the case of Monserrate Garcia Maytin v. Vela, 1909, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights in California. The plaintiff, Monserrate Garcia Maytin claimed that she was entitled to certain lands under Mexican law before California became part of the United States and thus should be recognized as such under American law. However, her claim was rejected by both lower courts and eventually reached the Supreme Court. The court ruled against Maytin on grounds that her claims were not valid because they were based on an alleged grant from Mexico which had never been confirmed or validated by any competent authority after California's annexation into America. Furthermore, it held that even if there had been a valid grant at some point in time prior to American sovereignty over California; its validity would have ceased upon transfer of jurisdiction unless specifically confirmed afterwards according to stipulations set out in Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848). Thus this case reaffirmed principles regarding transition of land titles following territorial changes due to treaties or conquests.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Monserrate Garcia Maytin v. Vela argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Vela, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant errors made during the trial process and these mistakes had an impact on its outcome. Specifically, it was believed that certain evidence should not have been admitted due to its questionable relevance and potential for biasing the jury against Maytin. Furthermore, they disagreed with how damages were calculated by arguing they did not accurately reflect actual losses suffered by Maytin as a result of actions taken by Vela. Therefore, this group felt strongly enough about these issues to voice their disagreement with both procedural aspects and final judgment rendered in this case.