In the Griffin v. Griffin case of 1945, the US Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a New York court had jurisdiction over a divorce proceeding when both parties were not residents of New York at the time of filing. The petitioner, Mrs. Griffin, filed for divorce in Nevada and then moved to New York while her husband remained in California. She later filed for alimony in New York after obtaining her divorce decree from Nevada. Mr. Griffin challenged this on grounds that neither party resided in NY during their separation or at the time she initially sought divorce; hence he argued that NY courts lacked personal jurisdiction over him regarding alimony payments. The Supreme Court ruled against Mrs.Griffin stating that under due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment, no state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process law; nor deny anyone within its jurisdiction equal protection laws - meaning states cannot exercise judicial power over individuals who are non-residents unless they have sufficient contact with said state. This decision established an important precedent about how far-reaching a state's powers could be concerning matters involving non-residents and set guidelines for future cases dealing with similar issues.

In the dissenting opinion for Griffin v. Griffin, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to allow a wife to sue her husband in federal court for tort damages violated long-standing principles of domestic relations law and threatened marital harmony. He contended that it was not within the jurisdiction of federal courts to interfere with state laws governing marriage and family relationships unless there was clear evidence of constitutional violation or congressional intent. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse of such lawsuits by spouses seeking leverage in divorce proceedings or other disputes. Ultimately, he believed this issue should be left to states' discretion rather than being decided by federal courts.