In the case of Armstrong v. Armstrong et al., 1955, a dispute arose over the validity of a divorce decree and property settlement between Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong that was granted in Mexico while both parties were residents of California. The Supreme Court ruled that under Article IV, Section 1 (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) of the U.S Constitution, states must respect public acts, records, and judicial proceedings from other states; however this does not extend to foreign countries' judgments or decrees unless there is voluntary appearance by defendant or if they are domiciled in said country at time judgment is rendered - neither condition applied here as Mrs. Armstrong did not appear voluntarily nor were either party residing in Mexico when divorce was granted. The court held that since Mexican courts had no jurisdiction over them due to their lack of domicile there during proceedings, their divorce decree could be disregarded by California courts without violating full faith & credit clause because it's only applicable within United States jurisdictions - thus rendering it invalid for purposes such as remarriage or division assets according to its terms within US borders.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Armstrong v. Armstrong et al., 1955, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling allowing for an increase in alimony payments was incorrect. The dissenting justices felt that there were no substantial changes in circumstances to warrant such an increase and pointed out inconsistencies with previous rulings on similar cases. They also expressed concerns about potential misuse of judicial discretion when it comes to modifying divorce decrees, arguing this could lead to unfair outcomes and uncertainty for parties involved. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes and believed their approach undermined legislative intent regarding post-divorce financial obligations between former spouses.