In the case of McMicking v. Scheilds in 1914, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, McMicking, claimed that he had inherited certain properties from his deceased uncle under Spanish law as they were based in Manila, Philippines which was then a Spanish colony. However, Shields argued that these properties should be distributed according to California's probate law since the deceased had been domiciled there at his time of death. The court ruled in favor of Shields stating that although Spain may have jurisdiction over matters within its territory (the Philippines), it did not have authority to dictate how an American citizen’s estate would be divided upon their death if they were domiciled elsewhere (California). Therefore, California's probate laws applied and not those of Spain or its colonies.

In the dissenting opinion for MCMICKING v. SCHIELDS, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds. He argued that there was a valid claim under federal law because of an alleged violation of rights protected by a treaty between Spain and the United States. The plaintiff claimed that he had been deprived of his property without due process as guaranteed by this treaty, which should have given him standing in federal court according to Holmes. Furthermore, he contended that it was not necessary for both parties to be citizens or residents of different states in order for diversity jurisdiction to apply; rather, it sufficed if one party was claiming protection under U.S laws against another party’s actions abroad.