In the 1914 case of Sage v. Hampe, the United States Supreme Court was called upon to decide on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Russell Sage, had inherited real estate from his brother Horace F. Sague who died intestate in New York City in 1906. However, the defendant Emma V. Hampe claimed that she was entitled to half of this inheritance as she was allegedly an illegitimate child of Horace F.Sage's father and therefore a half-sister to both Russell and Horace F.Sage. The court ruled against Ms.Hampe stating that under New York law at that time (which governed because it is where Mr.Horace lived), an illegitimate child could only inherit if there had been subsequent marriage between their parents or through express recognition by the father which did not occur here. Therefore, even though Ms.Hampe may have been biologically related to Mr.Russell Sage and his late brother Mr.Horace F.Sage , she wasn't legally recognized as such for purposes of inheritance due her status as an illegitimate child with no legal acknowledgment from their common alleged father.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sage v. Hampe argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held Mr. Sage liable for damages sustained by Mr. Hampe during an attempted assassination on Mr. Sage, was incorrect and unjustified under existing law and precedent. The dissent contended that there was no legal basis for holding a person responsible for injuries suffered by another as a result of an unlawful act committed against themself (in this case, the attempted murder). Furthermore, it pointed out inconsistencies in applying this principle only when physical harm is involved but not when emotional distress or other non-physical harms are inflicted upon innocent bystanders during criminal acts committed against others.