Dainese v. Cooke et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a foreign judgment could be enforced in the United States. The case involved a dispute between an Italian citizen, Dainese, and two American citizens, Cooke and his wife. Dainese had obtained a judgment against Cooke in an Italian court, and sought to enforce it in the United States. The Supreme Court held that the judgment could not be enforced in the United States, as the Italian court lacked jurisdiction over the American citizens. The Court reasoned that the Italian court had no power to compel the American citizens to appear before it, and thus could not render a valid judgment against them. The Court also noted that the Italian court had not provided the American citizens with any notice of the proceedings, and thus they had not been given an opportunity to defend themselves. The Court concluded that the judgment was not enforceable in the United States, and thus Dainese could not collect on the judgment.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Dainese v. Cooke et al., arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misreading of the relevant statute. He argued that under California law, when a party is sued for debt and they are not present to defend themselves, their property can be sold to satisfy any judgment against them. In this case, he argued that since there was no dispute as to whether or not Cooke owed Dainese money, it should have been allowed to proceed with its sale of his property without requiring him first appear in court and answer for himself. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if Cooke had appeared before the court prior to the sale of his property - which he did not - it would still have been within its rights under California law to order such a sale regardless of what defense he might offer up at trial. Thus, Justice Field concluded by stating that because there were no legal grounds upon which one could object or challenge this particular action taken by Dainese against Cooke’s estate (i.e., selling off his land), then it should stand as valid and binding according to both state and federal laws alike