In the Jacobs v. Marks case of 1900, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Jacobs, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties under his father's will which had been left to his stepmother during her lifetime. After her death, these properties were passed on to Marks who was unrelated by blood or marriage but named in the will as an heir after the stepmother's death. Jacobs argued this violated Colorado law which stated that no person could inherit property if they weren't related by blood or marriage unless there were no such relatives alive at all. The court ruled in favor of Marks stating that while it is true Colorado law prevents unrelated persons from inheriting when there are surviving spouses or children; however, this rule only applies when someone dies without leaving a valid will (intestate). In cases where a valid will exists - like here - then those wishes must be respected even if they leave property to non-relatives.

In the dissenting opinion for Jacobs v. Marks, the justice argued that the majority's interpretation of a Colorado statute was incorrect and resulted in an unjust outcome. The case involved a dispute over mining claims where one party had not complied with state law requiring annual labor on each claim to maintain ownership rights. The majority held that failure to perform this work resulted in forfeiture of all claims, even if some were worked while others were neglected. However, the dissenting justice believed this reading was too harsh and contrary to legislative intent; he suggested instead that only those specific claims left idle should be forfeited rather than all owned by a single individual or company. He also disagreed with how evidence from lower courts was handled and felt more weight should have been given to certain testimonies which supported his interpretation of the law.