In the case of Hammerstein v. Superior Court of California et al., 1950, Oscar Hammerstein II, a renowned Broadway lyricist, sought to prevent the enforcement of a subpoena that required him to travel from New York to Los Angeles for deposition in an unrelated lawsuit. The U.S Supreme Court ruled against Hammerstein and held that he was not exempted from appearing before the court just because he lived across the country. The court stated that if someone is within its jurisdiction and can be served with process, they are obliged to appear when summoned by courts unless there's a valid excuse or exemption under law. This decision underscored the principle that no one is above legal processes regardless of their location or status.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hammerstein v. Superior Court of California argued that the majority's decision to uphold a contempt citation against Mr. Hammerstein was incorrect and violated his constitutional rights. The dissent contended that Mr. Hammerstein, who had been cited for contempt after refusing to answer questions before a grand jury about his alleged communist affiliations, should have been protected by the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. They believed that this right extends not only to criminal trials but also to any other proceeding where answers might incriminate an individual, including grand jury proceedings like those at issue in this case.