In the case of Esenwein v. Commonwealth ex rel. Esenwein (1944), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving divorce and child custody across state lines. Mr. and Mrs. Esenwein were divorced in Nevada, with Mrs. Esenwein granted full custody of their minor child by the Nevada court; however, both parties were residents of Pennsylvania at that time where they had previously lived as husband and wife before separation occurred. Afterwards, Mr.Esenwein returned to Pennsylvania while his former wife remained in Nevada with their daughter for some time before she also moved back to Pennsylvania but without her ex-husband's knowledge or consent. Mr.Esenwein then filed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of his daughter from his ex-wife based on an earlier decree issued by a Pennsylvanian court granting him visitation rights which he claimed was being violated due to her unilateral move back to Pennsylvania with their daughter. The U.S Supreme Court held that although states should generally respect each other’s judicial decisions under "full faith and credit" clause, this did not apply here because personal jurisdiction over Mrs.Esenewein was lacking when she was initially sued for divorce in Nevada since neither party resided there at that time hence making its judgement voidable. Therefore,the Pennsylvanian courts could decide upon custodial matters concerning the couple's minor child independently from any prior decision made by Nevadan courts regarding same issue.

In the dissenting opinion for Esenwein v. Commonwealth ex rel. Esenwein, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a violation of full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. He contended that Pennsylvania had no right to ignore or modify New York’s divorce decree, as it did by granting alimony to Mrs. Esenwein despite her being divorced in New York where she wasn't entitled to such support post-divorce. According to him, this action undermined national unity and created an environment where states could arbitrarily disregard judgments from other states based on their own laws or public policy considerations rather than respecting them as required under full faith and credit clause which mandates each state respect judicial proceedings of every other state.