In the case of Lacassagne v. Chapuis, 1891, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws between French citizens residing in Louisiana. The plaintiff, Lacassagne claimed that under French law he had inherited certain properties from his deceased brother who died intestate (without leaving a will). However, the defendant Chapuis argued that according to Louisiana state law she was entitled to half of her husband's estate as community property since they were married at the time of his death. The court ruled in favor of Chapuis stating that although both parties were French nationals and their marriage took place in France; because they resided in Louisiana at the time of death, it is therefore subject to its jurisdiction and local laws apply - including those governing marital property rights. This ruling affirmed that U.S states have authority over domestic relations within their borders even if foreign nationals are involved.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Lacassagne v. Chapuis, 1891, argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider certain key factors. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how evidence was handled and interpreted during the trial process. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Louisiana law regarding inheritance rights, arguing that it had been misapplied in this particular case. Furthermore, they contended that a more thorough examination of both French and American legal principles should have been undertaken given their relevance to this dispute between French nationals over property located in New Orleans. Overall, these justices felt strongly enough about their differing viewpoint on these matters to formally record their disagreement with the court’s ruling.