In the case of Albanese v. NV Nederl. Amerik Stoomv Maats, 1965, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving maritime law and personal injury claims. The plaintiff, Mr. Albanese was an American longshoreman who suffered injuries while working aboard a ship owned by the defendant company (NV Nederl). He filed suit in New York under both United States' laws and Dutch law as the ship was of Dutch registry. However, his claim for damages based on negligence and unseaworthiness were dismissed by lower courts due to jurisdictional issues since it involved foreign defendants with limited contact in New York. The Supreme Court held that federal district courts have discretion to dismiss cases involving foreign parties if they believe that another forum would be more appropriate - this is known as "forum non conveniens". In this case, it found no abuse of discretion when lower courts dismissed Mr.Albanese's lawsuit because Netherlands provided an adequate alternative forum where he could seek redress for his injuries.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Albanese v. NV Nederl. Amerik Stoomv Maats, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case back to a lower court based on an interpretation of maritime law that he found too broad. He argued that there was no clear evidence in either international or domestic law supporting such a wide-ranging application of maritime jurisdiction over non-maritime contracts like those at issue in this case - specifically, employment contracts between seamen and their employers regarding wages earned during voyages. Furthermore, Justice Harlan expressed concern about potential negative implications for future cases involving similar issues if this expansive view were adopted as precedent by other courts.