In the case of Le Maistre v. Leffers et al., 1947, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Charles de Yampert Le Maistre, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties in Alabama as an heir-at-law of his deceased aunt's husband under French law. He argued that since his aunt had predeceased her husband without issue and because they were domiciled in France at their time of death where community property rules applied, he should inherit half of the couple’s estate located in Alabama. However, both lower courts ruled against him on grounds that Alabama state law did not recognize foreign community property laws for estates within its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions stating that while it is true some states have adopted portions of civil law pertaining to marital communities into their jurisprudence; this does not mean all states must do so or even respect such provisions when dealing with real estate within their borders. Therefore, despite what French law might dictate about who inherits under these circumstances - American state laws govern disposition of properties situated therein regardless if decedents were domiciled abroad.

In the dissenting opinion for Le Maistre v. Leffers et al., Justice Hugo Black disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss the case on procedural grounds, arguing that it was a clear violation of constitutional rights. He believed that Florida's "ouster" law, which allowed state courts to remove non-residents from their property if they failed to pay taxes or maintain it properly, was unconstitutional because it deprived individuals of their property without due process of law. Furthermore, he argued that this case should have been heard by federal courts since there were significant questions about its constitutionality and potential violations of civil liberties involved. In his view, dismissing such cases on technicalities undermined public confidence in the justice system and prevented important legal issues from being resolved.