In the case of Liberato et al. v. Royer et al., 1925, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to review a decision by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court regarding property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiffs were children of an Italian immigrant who had acquired real estate in Pennsylvania but died intestate (without a will). According to Italian law, his property should have been divided equally among his widow and children. However, under Pennsylvania law at that time, if a man died without leaving a will, all his real estate went directly to his widow for her lifetime use before being passed on to their children upon her death. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to immediate possession of their father's properties as per Italian law since he was an Italian citizen when he purchased them even though he later became an American citizen before dying intestate in America. However, the U.S Supreme Court upheld the ruling made by the state court stating that it is not unjust or against public policy for states within its jurisdictional limits applying its own rules concerning descent and distribution of estates left by those domiciled within such limits irrespective of where such persons may have originally come from.

In the dissenting opinion for Liberato et al. v. Royer et al., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the court should not have ruled in favor of Royer, as it was based on a misinterpretation of Pennsylvania law regarding property rights and inheritance. He contended that under Pennsylvania law, when an individual dies without leaving a will (intestate), their real estate is divided among their heirs according to specific rules set out by statute - with each heir receiving an undivided interest in the whole estate rather than any particular piece of property within it. Therefore, he believed that Liberato had every right to sell his share of his father's land without needing consent from other family members who also inherited shares in the same land because they all owned separate interests in one collective entity – not distinct parcels within it.