In the case of FMC Corporation v. Cynthia Ann Holliday, 1990, the U.S Supreme Court addressed whether a state court could exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation based on its indirect economic effects within the state. The dispute began when Cynthia Holliday sued FMC Corporation in Mississippi for injuries her husband sustained while using one of their products in Texas. However, FMC was not registered to do business nor had any offices or employees in Mississippi and thus argued that it should not be subject to suit there. The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled against them stating that they were indeed present through their product's use and resulting economic impact within the state. However, upon appeal by FMC Corp., the U.S Supreme Court reversed this decision unanimously (9-0). They held that due process requires more than mere minimum contacts with a forum State; rather it must arise from actions by which defendant purposefully avails itself of privilege conducting activities within forum State invoking benefits & protections of its laws - something absent here as no substantial connection between Mississippi & underlying controversy existed.

In the dissenting opinion for FMC Corporation v. Cynthia Ann Holliday, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to deny Holliday relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was a misinterpretation of Congress' intent when it enacted this legislation. He believed that Congress intended to provide broad protection against discrimination and retaliation in employment practices, including situations where an employer retaliates against an employee who has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In his view, by denying Holliday relief because she had not yet received a right-to-sue letter from EEOC at the time she filed her lawsuit, the Court was imposing an unnecessary procedural hurdle that could deter victims of workplace discrimination from seeking justice. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how different federal courts have interpreted this requirement which further complicates matters for potential plaintiffs. Therefore, he disagreed with majority’s ruling and would have allowed Holliday's claim to proceed without waiting for EEOC action.