In the 1933 case of Oakes v. Lake, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Oakes, was an heir to a large estate left by his father who had remarried after the death of his first wife (Oakes' mother). His stepmother claimed that she was entitled to half of her late husband's estate under California community property law since they were married at the time he acquired most of it. However, Oakes argued that because his father had inherited this wealth from his first wife (Oakes’ mother), it should be considered separate property rather than community property - thus excluding his stepmother from any claim. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Oakes stating that inheritances received during marriage are not automatically converted into community property unless there is clear evidence showing intent for such conversion by both spouses. Therefore, despite being married when acquiring most part of this wealth through inheritance from previous spouse, it remained as separate property and did not become part of their marital or 'community' assets.

In the dissenting opinion for Oakes v. Lake, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting picketing was incorrect. He believed that peaceful picketing should be protected under the First Amendment as a form of free speech and assembly. According to him, it is not within the power of a State to prohibit such activities merely because they are carried on in furtherance of an industrial dispute or by way of inducing others to support lawful demands made by those engaged in trade disputes. He also disagreed with the majority's view that picketing inherently involved intimidation, arguing instead that any potential violence or coercion could be addressed through other existing laws without infrally upon constitutional rights.