In the case of Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 1984, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Burger King Corporation against franchisee MacShara and Rudzewicz who were Michigan residents operating a Florida-based franchise without paying required fees to Burger King's Miami headquarters. The defendants argued that they should not be subject to jurisdiction in Florida as their business was primarily conducted in Michigan and had no substantial connection with Florida beyond the franchising agreement. However, the court held that by entering into a long-term relationship that envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts with Burger King’s Miami office, they had availed themselves of benefits provided by Florida law thus making them subject to personal jurisdiction there under International Shoe Co v Washington (1945). This ruling clarified how courts determine personal jurisdiction over non-residents involved in contractual disputes.

In the dissenting opinion for Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to allow a Florida court to exercise jurisdiction over a Michigan franchisee was incorrect and violated due process rights. He contended that the defendant had not purposefully availed himself of doing business in Florida simply by entering into an agreement with a corporation headquartered there, especially given that all his operations were based solely in Michigan. Furthermore, he believed it unfair to expect defendants like Rudzewicz to anticipate being hauled into court far from their home state on such grounds. This ruling essentially allowed any large national or international company to drag out-of-state partners or customers into its home state’s courts regardless of how burdensome this may be for them - something which Stevens felt contradicted principles of fair play and substantial justice.