In the case of Stevens v. Arnold et al., Executors and Trustees of Nirdlinger, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a trust fund established by Morris Nirdlinger for his daughter, Mrs. Stevens. The terms of the trust stated that upon her death, any remaining funds would be distributed among Mr. Nirdlinger's surviving descendants or their issue per stirpes (by branch). When Mrs. Stevens died without children in 1917, there was disagreement about who should inherit her share of the trust: her husband or Mr.Nirdlinger's other descendants. The lower court ruled in favor of Mr.Stevens based on Pennsylvania law which allowed widows to inherit from their husbands' estates even if they had no children together; however it did not allow widowers to do so unless there were shared biological children involved. Upon appeal at Supreme Court level though, this ruling was reversed as it found that such state laws could not override explicit provisions made within trusts regarding distribution after death - especially when these provisions are clear and unambiguous like those present in this case where it clearly mentioned 'issue per stirpes'. Therefore,the court held that only direct blood relatives could claim inheritance under such circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Stevens v. Arnold et al., Executors and Trustees of Nirdlinger, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania law that allowed a will to be contested after probate if it was found that there had been fraud or undue influence in its creation. He argued that this violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it retroactively changed legal rules without providing adequate notice or opportunity for those affected to respond. He also contended that such laws could lead to uncertainty and instability in property rights, as they would allow previously settled matters to be reopened based on new allegations of wrongdoing.