In the case of Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud et al., 1955, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over jurisdiction in a personal injury lawsuit. Mr. Czaplicki was injured while working on board the ship Hoegh Silvercloud and sued both his employer, United States Lines Company (USL), and the owner of the ship, Skibs A/S Arcadia (Arcadia). Initially, he filed suit in Pennsylvania state court against USL only but later added Arcadia as a defendant after learning that it owned the vessel. However, since Arcadia did not do business in Pennsylvania and had no contacts there other than occasional visits by its ships to Philadelphia harbor for loading or unloading cargo under charter agreements with US lines company; it challenged this addition claiming lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that although general principles would allow an action against two defendants jointly liable to be brought where either could be served personally within territorial limits of court's authority; these principles were not applicable here because federal law governed maritime torts like this one which required uniformity throughout country irrespective of varying rules among states about joint liability or venue selection for lawsuits involving multiple defendants.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud et al., 1955, argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint was incorrect. They believed that there were sufficient grounds for a trial and disagreed with the interpretation of maritime law by their colleagues. According to them, it was not necessary for an injury to occur on navigable waters for admiralty jurisdiction to apply; rather, they contended that if an injury had its operational occurrence on water (even though actual harm may have been suffered on land), it should fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in previous rulings where similar cases were allowed trials under maritime laws despite injuries occurring off-water or involving non-seafaring individuals. Thus, they felt this dismissal contradicted established legal precedents and unfairly denied plaintiff his right to seek justice through a trial.