In the Lynch v. Murphy case of 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws in California. The plaintiff, Lynch, was an heir to a large estate left by his uncle who had no children or spouse at the time of death. However, Murphy claimed that he was entitled to half of this estate as he had married the deceased's sister after his death. The court held that under California law at that time (which followed Spanish civil law), marriage did not retroactively create inheritance rights for spouses in relation to their partner’s siblings’ estates if they died before such marriages occurred. Therefore, Murphy's claim was dismissed and it was decided that Lynch would inherit all properties from his late uncle.

The dissenting opinion in Lynch v. Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting the sale of alcohol was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases and violated individual rights. The dissent emphasized that it is not within the power of states to infringe upon personal liberties, such as consuming alcohol, without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that if this ruling were allowed to stand, it would set a dangerous precedent for future decisions regarding individual freedoms and state powers. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential misuse or abuse of this ruling by other states seeking to control or limit personal behaviors deemed undesirable by those in power.