In the case of O'Connor et al. v. Mills et al., 1936, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws in New York state. The plaintiffs were heirs to an estate who argued that they had been unfairly excluded from their rightful inheritance due to a misinterpretation of New York's law on wills and estates by lower courts. They contended that under the correct interpretation, they should have received part of their relative’s estate which was instead given entirely to another family member (the defendant). However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld previous rulings favoring the defendants' claim to sole ownership of all properties involved in this case. This decision reinforced existing interpretations of New York's inheritance laws at that time.

The dissenting opinion in the O'Connor et al. v. Mills et al., 1936 case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring union membership as a condition of employment was an overreach of judicial power and violated individual rights to freedom of association and contract. The dissenters contended that such laws effectively forced individuals into unions against their will, infringing upon their personal liberties under the guise of promoting industrial peace. They also criticized the majority for failing to adequately consider whether there were less intrusive means available for achieving this goal, arguing that it was not within the Court's purview to decide which methods were most effective or desirable for maintaining labor relations stability. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses arising from unchecked union power and warned against establishing legal precedents that could undermine constitutional protections.