In the case of Gilbert, Administrator of Selleck, v. David, Administratrix of Selleck (1914), the US Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Connecticut law that allowed for an estate administrator to sell property without court approval violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The dispute arose after Mr. Selleck died intestate and his widow sold some real estate as administratrix without obtaining probate court permission first. Later on, another administrator appointed by the same court challenged this sale arguing it was invalid because no prior authorization had been obtained from any competent authority. The Supreme Court held that there was no violation of due process rights under the 14th amendment in this situation since state laws provided adequate protection for interested parties' rights through other means such as allowing them to challenge unauthorized sales in courts later on if they wished so. Therefore, requiring prior judicial approval before every single administrative action would be unnecessary and burdensome according to their interpretation.

In the dissenting opinion for Gilbert v. David, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which held that a widow could not inherit her deceased husband's property because she had remarried before his death - was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this interpretation of Connecticut law unfairly penalized women who chose to remarry after their husbands' deaths and did not reflect the intent of lawmakers when they wrote inheritance laws. They pointed out that under common law, widows were entitled to one-third of their late husbands' estates regardless of whether or not they remarried. Furthermore, they contended that if lawmakers had intended for widows who remarried to lose these rights, they would have explicitly stated so in legislation.