In the 1913 case of Jones v. Jones, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Mrs. Jones, claimed that she was entitled to half of her deceased husband's allotment under an Oklahoma statute which stated that upon death without a will (intestate), one-half of the property goes to the surviving spouse and one-half to their children. However, Mr. Jones had made a will before his death leaving all his property to his children from previous marriages. The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Jones based on federal law governing Native American lands at that time - as Mr.Jones was part Choctaw Indian and received this land due to those rights - which superseded state laws regarding intestate succession or distribution of assets when no valid will exists. This ruling upheld that federal law takes precedence over state law where there is conflict between them especially concerning matters related specifically towards Native Americans' properties allotted by virtue thereof.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Jones v. Jones argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a wife could not sue her husband for personal injuries inflicted upon her during their marriage, was incorrect and outdated. The dissent emphasized that such an interpretation of marital law was based on antiquated notions about women's subservience within marriage and failed to recognize modern understandings of equality between spouses. It contended that allowing husbands to inflict harm upon their wives without legal consequences undermined principles of justice and fairness. Furthermore, it pointed out potential negative implications for public policy by perpetuating domestic violence within marriages due to lack of legal recourse available for abused wives.