In the case of Modern Woodmen of America v. Jennie V. Mixer, 1924, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a life insurance policy could be paid out to a beneficiary who had been convicted for murdering the insured person. The court ruled in favor of Modern Woodmen of America, an insurance company that refused to pay out on a policy held by Charles F. Mixer after his wife and named beneficiary, Jennie V. Mixer, was found guilty for his murder. The decision hinged on public policy considerations against allowing criminals to profit from their crimes - often referred as "the slayer rule". This principle prevents someone from receiving property or other benefits as a result of causing another's death. This ruling set precedent in American law that individuals cannot benefit financially from illegal actions they commit themselves; specifically it solidified the legal doctrine preventing murderers from collecting life insurance payouts when they are listed as beneficiaries.

The dissenting opinion in the Modern Woodmen of America v. Jennie V. Mixer case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established legal principles and precedent, particularly regarding contract law. The dissent emphasized that a contract should be considered as a whole, rather than dissected into separate parts for interpretation purposes. It also pointed out that there is no evidence to suggest any fraudulent intent on behalf of Mrs. Mixer when she applied for her husband's life insurance policy or when she made subsequent changes to it after his death - actions which were fully within her rights as the policyholder according to its terms and conditions. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view about forfeiture clause application without considering other relevant factors such as good faith and reasonable expectations of parties involved in contracts like insurance policies.