In the case of Iglehart v. Iglehart, 1906, the Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The conflict arose after John Eager Howard Iglehart passed away and left his estate to his wife and children in Maryland. However, one of his sons from Indiana claimed that he had been unjustly excluded from the will due to an alleged agreement between him and his father regarding certain properties in Indiana. He argued that this agreement should supersede Maryland's law which did not recognize such agreements if they were not explicitly stated in a person's will. The Supreme Court ruled against the son, stating that even if there was an oral agreement between him and his father about these properties (which wasn't proven), it would still be invalid because it contradicted Maryland’s established inheritance laws where Mr. Iglehart resided at death time; thus those laws governed how assets should be distributed among heirs unless otherwise specified by written testamentary documents.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Iglehart v. Iglehart argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found that a wife could not sue her husband for damages resulting from his alleged negligence, was incorrect. The dissent believed this interpretation of marital law was outdated and unjustly denied women legal recourse against their husbands' harmful actions. They contended that marriage should not grant immunity from liability for wrongful acts and emphasized the importance of individual rights within marriage. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that allowing such lawsuits would disrupt domestic harmony, arguing instead it might deter negligent behavior within marriages.