In Holtzman v. Douglas, the Supreme Court of the United States dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The case revolved around two pieces of land in New York City that were owned by John G. Wendel, who died intestate (without leaving a will) in 1894. His sisters claimed ownership of these properties based on their interpretation of an old Dutch law from 1787 which stated that if someone dies without heirs or a will, his real estate should go to his siblings rather than being divided among more distant relatives as per common law practice at the time. However, one cousin named Frederick Woltman contested this claim arguing that under American common law principles applicable in New York State during Wendel's death, he was entitled to part of the estate as well since he was also related to Wendel through another line. The Supreme Court ruled against Woltman stating that while it is true American common law would have allowed him some share under normal circumstances but because this specific piece of land came into possession due to operation of Dutch colonial statute which had different rules for such situations; those rules continued to apply even after America gained independence and adopted its own legal system thereby making only sisters eligible inheritors here.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Holtzman v. Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles and precedent. The dissent contended that there was no constitutional or statutory authority for the court to intervene in what they viewed as essentially a political question, namely, whether or not to impeach an executive branch official. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors," arguing it should be understood more broadly than just criminal conduct. Furthermore, they believed that by allowing judicial review of impeachment proceedings, the court had overstepped its bounds and infringed upon Congress' powers under separation of powers doctrine.