In the case of Ex parte IN THE MATTER OF FULLER et al., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COPARTNERS UNDER THE NAME OF E.M. FULLER & COMPANY, Petitioners, 1922, the petitioners were charged with contempt for refusing to answer questions and produce documents in a bankruptcy proceeding. The Supreme Court held that they could not refuse to testify on the grounds that their testimony might incriminate them under state law because federal immunity statutes protected them from prosecution based on any evidence they provided. The court also ruled that this protection extended to corporations as well as individuals. However, it was clarified by Justice Brandeis' dissenting opinion stating such immunity does not extend if there is a possibility of prosecution under state laws which do not recognize federal immunity provisions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex parte IN THE MATTER OF FULLER et al., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COPARTNERS UNDER THE NAME OF E.M. FULLER & COMPANY, was not specified in the available resources. Therefore, it is impossible to provide a summary for this particular aspect of the case without further information or context about who dissented and what their arguments were against the majority decision. It's important to note that Supreme Court decisions often involve complex legal issues and interpretations of law which may result in differing opinions among justices; however, these specific details are necessary to accurately summarize any dissenting views expressed during this 1922 case involving Fuller et al.