In the case of Hammerstein v. Superior Court of California et al., 1950, Oscar Hammerstein II, a renowned Broadway lyricist and playwright, sought to prohibit the Superior Court from enforcing a subpoena that required him to testify in another lawsuit involving his former business partner. The Supreme Court ruled against Hammerstein's request for prohibition. The court held that while he may have been inconvenienced by having to travel across country to give testimony, this did not constitute an "undue burden" under existing law which would justify quashing the subpoena. Furthermore, it was deemed relevant as his testimony could potentially provide significant insights into the dispute between his former business associate and third parties due to his past professional relationship with them.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hammerstein v. Superior Court of California argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which denied Oscar Hammerstein II's request for an injunction against picketing by labor unions at his theater, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this denial violated Hammerstein’s constitutional rights and allowed unlawful coercion by the union. They contended that while peaceful picketing is protected under free speech laws, it becomes illegal when used as a tool to force employers into accepting demands they would otherwise reject. In their view, such actions infringe upon property rights and freedom of contract guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of federal law preempting state jurisdiction over labor disputes involving interstate commerce; instead arguing states should be able to regulate these matters within their borders without interference from federal authorities or courts.