In the 1937 case of Adam v. Saenger, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state court can exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if they are served with process while voluntarily present within the state, even if their presence is brief or for unrelated reasons. The plaintiff in this case was a California resident who sued two Texas residents in California court for breach of contract. The defendants were served with process while they were temporarily in California to attend another lawsuit and argued that this did not give the California courts jurisdiction over them because their presence was involuntary due to being summoned by subpoena for another trial. However, Justice Benjamin Cardozo writing on behalf of unanimous court disagreed and held that serving someone with legal papers while they're physically present within a state's borders is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction regardless of how or why they came into the state.

In the dissenting opinion for ADAM v. SAENGER et al., Justice Butler argued that the court's decision violated principles of due process. He contended that a state does not have jurisdiction to render judgment in personam against an individual who is not present within its territory, unless they voluntarily make themselves party to proceedings or are personally served with summons while within the state. In this case, he believed neither condition was met and thus objected to the majority ruling which upheld California courts' right to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants based on their contractual agreement with a third-party forum selection clause. According to him, such practice would allow states unlimited power over individuals outside their borders simply because they entered into contracts containing these clauses - something he viewed as fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional under Fourteenth Amendment protections.