In Durfee et ux. v. Duke (1963), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state court's judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in another state if it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties involved, even if its determination of jurisdiction was erroneous. The case arose when landowners in Missouri sued Kansas residents for trespassing on their property located at the border between both states. A Missouri court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but a federal district court later held that part of this land was actually situated within Kansas' territory, thus rendering invalid any judgments made by Missouri courts regarding it. The Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that since no evidence suggested fraud or collusion during initial proceedings and because all parties were given an opportunity to litigate fully about territorial location before judgement was passed by Missouri courts; hence they should be respected under principles of res judicata (a matter already judged) regardless whether they are correct or not as per Article IV Section 1 - Full Faith & Credit Clause which requires each state respect public acts, records & judicial proceedings from every other state.

In the Durfee v. Duke case, Justice Harlan presented a dissenting opinion. He argued that the majority's decision undermined principles of finality and federalism by allowing for relitigation of issues already decided in state courts. According to him, once a court has made its judgment on an issue within its jurisdiction, it should be considered as definitive and binding unless reversed through appeal processes within that same system. The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively allowed parties to bypass this process by seeking review in federal courts instead - something he saw as detrimental to the integrity of judicial systems at both levels.