In the case of Gillespie, Administratrix v. United States Steel Corp., 1964, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute concerning wrongful death and personal injury claims related to maritime law. The plaintiff was the administratrix of two estates: one for a man who died in an accident while working on navigable waters (covered by federal jurisdiction), and another for his son who was injured but survived (under state jurisdiction). The defendant, U.S. Steel Corporation argued that these cases should be tried separately due to their different jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court held that both cases could be combined into one trial under admiralty jurisdiction as they arose from a single incident and involved common questions of fact. This decision reflected practical considerations about judicial efficiency over strict adherence to procedural rules.

In the dissenting opinion for Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., Justice Harlan argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by deciding a question of law not presented in the petition for certiorari, and thus not briefed or argued before them. He contended that this was an inappropriate use of judicial power and violated principles of due process. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of Section 33 of Merchant Marine Act (Jones Act), asserting it did not provide jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders denying motions to dismiss on grounds such as forum non conveniens. He also criticized the majority's decision to remand without providing clear guidance on how lower courts should handle similar cases in future, arguing it created unnecessary confusion and uncertainty.