The Haddock v. Haddock case in 1905 revolved around the issue of divorce and alimony across state lines. Mr. Haddock, a resident of New York, was sued by his wife for abandonment and non-support in Connecticut where she resided after their separation. The Supreme Court ruled that Connecticut's jurisdiction did not extend to New York; therefore, it could not enforce its judgment against Mr. Haddock who had no personal or property ties with Connecticut other than his estranged wife living there. This decision highlighted the complexities involved when dealing with family law matters across different states' jurisdictions which led to future reforms such as the Full Faith and Credit Clause that requires each state to respect public acts, records, and judicial proceedings from every other state.

The dissenting opinion in Haddock v. Haddock, delivered by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and failed to consider the realities of modern life. He contended that if a man leaves his wife without justification, he should not be able to escape his legal obligations simply by moving to another state where divorce laws are more favorable. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on jurisdictional issues; arguing instead that Connecticut had sufficient interest in enforcing its own marriage laws against one of its citizens who happened to be temporarily residing elsewhere when sued for divorce. The justice also criticized the court’s reliance on outdated notions about marital relations and women’s rights which did not reflect contemporary social conditions or values.