In the case of Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. Nixon, 1925, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court could exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation in a wrongful death lawsuit. The plaintiff, Mrs. Nixon, filed suit against the railway company after her husband died while working for them in West Virginia; however, she brought her claim to Kentucky courts where she resided. The defendant argued that since they were incorporated in Virginia and had no operations or property within Kentucky's borders at the time of Mr. Nixon’s death - they should not be subject to its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company stating that it would violate due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment if corporations were subjected to suits wherever their employees reside without any other substantial connection with that state (like having operations or properties there). This ruling established important precedent regarding personal jurisdiction over corporations.

In the dissenting opinion for Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. Nixon, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn a lower court ruling in favor of Nixon. He argued that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support a finding of negligence on the part of the railway company, which resulted in an employee's death. The justice believed that it was not within their purview as Supreme Court justices to reevaluate this evidence or second-guess these findings made by juries and affirmed by state courts unless they were clearly erroneous or unjust – which he did not believe was true in this case. Therefore, he would have upheld the original verdict awarding damages to Mrs. Nixon for her husband’s wrongful death caused by alleged negligence from his employer, Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company.