In the case of Baker et al. v. General Motors Corp. et al., 1985, the plaintiffs sued General Motors (GM) for damages resulting from a car accident involving a GM vehicle that allegedly had defective brakes. The court ruled in favor of GM, stating that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the brake system was indeed faulty and directly caused the accident. Furthermore, it found no negligence on part of GM regarding any potential design defects or failure to warn consumers about possible risks associated with their vehicles' braking systems.

The dissenting opinion in the Baker v. General Motors Corp case argued that the court's decision to allow expert testimony from a former GM employee, who had been barred by a Michigan court order from testifying about his work at GM, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling undermined state courts' ability to control their own proceedings and maintain respect for their judgments. They also felt it could lead to forum shopping - where parties may choose to file lawsuits in certain jurisdictions purely based on perceived advantages or biases - as plaintiffs might seek out federal courts for more favorable rulings regarding witness testimonies. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential violations of principles of comity among different judicial systems if such decisions were allowed to stand unchallenged.