In the case of Kryger v. Wilson et al., Administrators, in 1916, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a will that had been written and executed in Denmark should be recognized as valid under South Dakota law. The decedent was a resident of South Dakota but had returned to Denmark shortly before his death where he wrote his will. His estate included both real and personal property located within South Dakota's jurisdiction. The court ruled that while foreign-made wills are generally accepted if they comply with local laws at their place of creation, this principle does not apply when it comes to real property situated outside the country where the will is made; such properties must follow lex rei sitae (the law of the land). Therefore, since Danish law allowed for oral testamentary dispositions which were contrary to South Dakota’s requirement for written ones, only those parts relating to personal property were upheld by US courts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kryger v. Wilson et al., Administrators, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting women from working as bartenders was based on outdated and discriminatory views about gender roles. The dissenters believed that this ruling violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by treating men and women differently under the law without sufficient justification. They contended that there was no inherent reason why women could not perform bartender duties just as competently as men, and they criticized their colleagues for relying on stereotypes about female fragility and dependence to justify their decision. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how these supposed protective measures were applied; if it were truly necessary to shield all females from certain types of work for their own good, then why did many other physically demanding or potentially dangerous jobs remain open to them? In conclusion, while acknowledging states' broad powers over economic regulation under existing jurisprudence at that time period (1916), these justices nonetheless maintained such authority should not be used arbitrarily or unfairly against one particular group.