In the case of Stockmeyer v. Tobin in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Stockmeyer, was an assignee of a claim against the estate of James Lick who had died in California leaving substantial assets. The defendant, Tobin (executor to Lick's will), argued that under Californian law at that time only direct heirs could make claims on an estate - not creditors or assignees like Stockmeyer. The court ruled in favor of Tobin stating that while it is true federal courts are not bound by state decisions when interpreting federal law or constitutionality issues; they do defer to state rulings regarding local matters such as property and inheritance laws unless there is clear error or violation of fundamental principles. In this case, no such violations were found thus upholding California's interpretation allowing only direct heirs to claim from estates.

The dissenting opinion in the Stockmeyer v. Tobin case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider certain key aspects of maritime law. The dissenters believed that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an accident if they were not at fault, as per general principles of limited liability in maritime law. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "seaworthiness," arguing that this term refers to a vessel’s physical condition and ability to withstand sea conditions, rather than its crew's competence or behavior. In their view, holding owners responsible for crew members' actions would unfairly extend their liabilities beyond what is reasonable or customary under maritime law.