In the case of Real De Dolores Del Oro v. United States in 1899, a Mexican mining company sued the U.S. government for damages caused by American troops during their occupation of Mexico City in 1847-48, during the Mexican-American War. The company claimed that it had suffered losses due to actions taken by these troops and sought compensation under Article XI of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (the peace treaty ending this war). However, the Supreme Court ruled against them on two grounds: firstly, because they found no evidence that any damage was done maliciously or wantonly; secondly, because Article XI did not cover claims arising from military operations during wartime but only those occurring after ratification of said treaty. Therefore, as per Justice Edward Douglass White's opinion for a unanimous court decision - even if there were valid claims about property destructions made by US forces while occupying enemy territory at war time - such acts are not compensable under international law nor covered within provisions set forth in aforementioned treaty between both nations involved here.

In the dissenting opinion for REAL DE DOLORES DEL ORO v. UNITED STATES, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to deny a land grant claim was incorrect because it failed to consider Spanish law and custom at the time of the grant. He believed that under Spanish rule, such grants were often made informally and without extensive documentation or surveying. Therefore, he contended that lack of formal evidence should not be used as grounds for denying claims based on these grants. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled by U.S courts in different territories after they were acquired from Mexico following the Mexican-American War - with some recognizing informal land grants while others did not - which he felt demonstrated an unfair application of law.