The U.S. Supreme Court case Blinn, Receiver of Allen, an Absentee v. Nelson in 1911 revolved around the issue of property rights and jurisdiction over a person who was absent from their state of residence. The plaintiff, Blinn as the receiver for Allen (an absentee), sued Nelson to recover possession of certain real estate located in Minnesota that had been sold by Allen while he was living out-of-state. The defendant argued that since Allen wasn't present within his home state at the time when receivership proceedings were initiated against him there, those proceedings didn't have any legal effect on his properties situated outside that state's jurisdictional boundaries. However, the court ruled in favor of Blinn stating that even though a person may be physically absent from their domicile or usual place of abode due to temporary circumstances such as travel or business engagements etc., they are still considered constructively present there for all intents and purposes related to law unless they've abandoned it with no intention to return back again ever. Therefore, despite being temporarily away during receivership initiation process against him within his home state's jurisdictional limits; this did not exempt Mr.Allen’s properties located elsewhere from being affected by those proceedings according its laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Blinn v. Nelson, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the law and application to this case. The dissent believed that Allen's property should not have been seized by his creditors because he was an absentee who had left his home state due to financial difficulties but intended to return when circumstances improved. They contended that a person does not lose their rights as a citizen or resident just because they are temporarily absent from their domicile, especially if there is clear intent to return. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on jurisdictional matters; arguing instead that courts in one state cannot make binding decisions about property located in another without violating principles of federalism and states' rights.