In the case of Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether Minnesota courts could constitutionally apply their own state law to a claim involving an insurance policy issued in Wisconsin for a car registered and garaged there, when the insured moved to Minnesota before his death in a car accident. The court ruled 4-3 that it was constitutional for Minnesota's laws to be applied because sufficient contacts existed among Allstate, the decedent (Hague), and the State of Minnesota. The majority opinion held that due process requirements were met as long as there is "a significant aggregation of contact, creating state interests," such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair; this decision expanded states' abilities to apply their own laws under certain circumstances even if some aspects related to other jurisdictions.

In the dissenting opinion for Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague, Justice Powell argued that Minnesota's jurisdiction over this case was unconstitutional because it violated due process rights of corporations to not be subject to suits in states where they do not have substantial connections. He contended that the majority's decision expanded state court jurisdiction beyond what had been previously established by International Shoe Co. v Washington and other precedents, which required a corporation’s activities within a state to be “systematic and continuous” before being sued there. In this case, he believed that Mr.Hague’s only connection with Minnesota - his residence at the time of death - was insufficiently related to Allstate or its insured driver (both from Wisconsin) for Minnesota courts to exercise jurisdiction over them.