In the case of Glover v. United States in 1896, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning land ownership and inheritance rights. The plaintiff, Mrs. Glover, claimed that she was entitled to a piece of property located in Washington D.C., which had been owned by her late husband's father who died intestate (without leaving a will). She argued that according to District of Columbia law at the time when her father-in-law died, his real estate should have passed directly to his son (her husband), bypassing any claims from other relatives or creditors. However, this claim was disputed by others who asserted their own right to inherit under different provisions of local law. The court found against Mrs. Glover and upheld lower courts' decisions denying her claim on the property based on an interpretation of relevant laws regarding inheritance rights in Washington D.C.. It held that upon death without a will during marriage with children present, one-third interest goes directly to surviving spouse while two-thirds is divided among descendants; if no descendants exist then it passes entirely onto surviving spouse but subject first for payment debts owed by deceased person’s estate before distribution can occur.

In the dissenting opinion for Glover v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated basic principles of justice. He contended that a defendant should not be punished more harshly simply because they chose to exercise their constitutional right to appeal a conviction. In his view, this constituted double jeopardy and infringed upon an individual’s rights under the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal law regarding sentencing after retrial; arguing it did not allow courts to increase sentences on retrial unless new evidence had been presented which would justify such an increase in punishment.