In the case of O'Dell et al. v. Espinoza, 1981, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an estate and guardianship. The plaintiffs were contesting the appointment of Espinoza as personal representative of an estate and guardian for certain individuals associated with that estate. However, in its decision, the court ruled in favor of Espinoza's appointment to these roles by upholding lower court decisions which had previously confirmed this arrangement. This ruling effectively affirmed that there was no legal basis to challenge or overturn those appointments on grounds presented by O'Dell and others involved in this lawsuit.

The dissenting opinion in the case of O'Dell et al. v. Espinoza, 1981, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against a group of doctors accused of medical malpractice was flawed. The dissenters believed that there were significant issues with how evidence was presented and interpreted during the trial, which they felt unfairly prejudiced the jury against the defendants. They also took issue with certain instructions given to jurors about how to assess liability and damages in cases involving alleged negligence by multiple parties. In their view, these factors combined to deny the defendant physicians their right to a fair trial under due process principles enshrined in both state law and federal constitutional law.