The Irresistible case was a dispute between Daniels, the claimant, and the United States. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Daniels, finding that he had been wrongfully deprived of his property by the government. The court held that when an individual is wrongfully deprived of their property by a governmental entity without due process or just compensation as required under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, they are entitled to damages from said entity for such deprivation. This ruling established important precedent concerning individuals' rights against wrongful takings by governments and set forth guidelines for how those claims should be handled going forward.

In The Irresistible, Daniels, Claimant (1822), the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be enforced if it is found to be against public policy. In this case, the claimant had entered into an agreement with another party for a loan of money in exchange for his labor and services. However, due to economic circumstances at the time of the agreement's formation, it was deemed by some that such contracts were contrary to public policy and thus unenforceable. The dissenters argued that while such agreements may have been made in good faith at their inception they could still become void if later determined to be against public policy or otherwise illegal under existing laws. Furthermore, they asserted that even though there may have been no legal impediment preventing enforcement of these types of contracts when formed does not mean they are immune from being declared invalid after-the-fact based on changing social conditions or new legislation enacted since then which renders them unlawful.