In Miedreich v. Lauenstein (1913), the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Miedreich, was an heir to a deceased relative's estate in Germany but had been denied his share by German authorities due to his American citizenship. He sued Lauenstein, the administrator of the estate in America for recovery of his portion. The lower court ruled against him based on international law principles that allowed Germany to apply its own inheritance laws within its borders without interference from foreign courts. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that while it is true that each nation has sovereignty within its territory including matters related to inheritance distribution among heirs; when such property or assets are located outside their jurisdiction - as was part of this case where some assets were located in America - they cannot dictate how those should be distributed according to their national laws ignoring local ones. The ruling emphasized respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty but also highlighted limitations thereof especially when dealing with transnational issues like asset distribution across different jurisdictions.

In the dissenting opinion for Miedreich v. Lauenstein, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to deny a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. He argued that it was not clear whether or not this evidence would have changed the outcome of the original trial and therefore, in order to ensure justice was served, a new trial should be granted. Furthermore, he criticized his colleagues' reliance on technicalities rather than focusing on achieving substantial justice between parties involved in litigation. In essence, Justice Holmes believed that courts should prioritize fairness over procedural rules when deciding cases such as these.