In the 1901 case of Hatfield v. King, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in West Virginia. The plaintiff, Hatfield, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had obtained it through inheritance. However, the defendant, King argued that this was not possible because under West Virginia law at the time (1863), women could not inherit property unless they were widows or unmarried daughters living with their fathers at his death. As such, King contended that since the woman from whom Hatfield's predecessor bought the land did not meet these criteria when her father died in 1859; she never legally owned it and thus couldn't have sold it to him. The court ruled against Hatfield stating there was no evidence presented proving any legal changes to those laws before or after 1863 which would have allowed for different circumstances regarding female inheritance rights during this period in question.

In the dissenting opinion for Hatfield v. King, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Mr. Hatfield was incorrect because they failed to consider important aspects of his case. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how evidence had been collected and presented in this case, which should have led to a different outcome. They also felt that certain legal principles had not been properly applied by the lower courts or considered by their colleagues on the Supreme Court bench during deliberations about this appeal. Specifically, they disagreed with interpretations of property rights laws used in reaching this verdict and thought more weight should have been given to Mr.Hatfield’s claims about violations of his constitutional rights during proceedings at trial level.