In the case of Corbett, Guardian v. Stergios, also known as Steryiakis in 1964, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to review a decision made by an Indiana court regarding a guardianship dispute. The petitioner was appointed guardian of her mentally ill husband's estate and filed suit against Stergios for allegedly mismanaging her husband's assets while he had power of attorney over them. The lower courts ruled in favor of Stergios on grounds that his actions were not fraudulent or negligent but rather based on good faith decisions made with limited information available at the time. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court it was held that there were significant errors in how evidence and testimony were evaluated during trial which may have affected its outcome significantly. Therefore, they reversed and remanded this case back to state court for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Corbett, Guardian v. Stergios, also known as Steryiakis (1964), argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring foreign corporations to consent to personal jurisdiction for all cases arising from their activities within the state was an overreach. The dissent contended that this requirement violated due process rights by forcing companies into blanket acceptance of jurisdiction without considering whether specific claims had any connection with their operations in the state. They believed it was unfair and unconstitutional to subject businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions to potential litigation anywhere they conduct business, regardless of where alleged wrongs occurred or were suffered.