The Streitwolf v. Streitwolf case in 1900 revolved around a dispute over the validity of a will and testament. The testator, who was domiciled in New York but died while temporarily residing in Connecticut, had left his estate to his wife and children. However, one of the sons contested this will on grounds that it violated certain provisions of German law - as they were all subjects of Germany at the time - which required equal distribution among all children regardless of any stipulations made by parents or guardians. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that since he was domiciled in New York at the time of death, local laws would apply rather than foreign ones unless there is an express intention otherwise stated within the document itself; thus upholding its validity under American law despite conflicting with German inheritance regulations.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Streitwolf v. Streitwolf argued that the court should not have jurisdiction over a divorce granted by a foreign country, as it was not within their power to question its validity. The justice believed that if both parties were present and participated in the proceedings, then it should be accepted as valid unless there is clear evidence of fraud or collusion. They also pointed out that many states had already adopted this principle and warned against creating inconsistencies between federal and state law on such an important issue. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of domicile requirements for divorce cases, arguing that physical presence alone should suffice even without intent to remain permanently.