In the case of Hanson v. Denckla, the Supreme Court ruled on issues related to jurisdiction and trusts. The case involved a trust established in Delaware by Mrs. Donner, who later moved to Florida where she passed away. Her daughters contested the validity of amendments made to her will while she was living in Florida which affected distribution from this trust fund set up in Delaware. The court had to decide whether or not Florida courts had jurisdiction over a trustee located out-of-state (in Delaware). In its decision, the Supreme Court held that even though Mrs. Donner lived and died in Florida, since there were no sufficient contacts between the trustee (Delaware Trust Company) and state of Florida - such as soliciting business or deriving substantial revenue from goods used within it - it would violate due process for a state court outside of Delaware to exercise control over them without their consent; thus ruling that only Delaware courts could have jurisdiction over matters involving this particular trust.

In the dissenting opinion for Hanson v. Denckla, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of due process and full faith and credit. He believed that Florida had jurisdiction over the trust because Mrs. Donner, who created it while living in Pennsylvania but later moved to Florida, retained significant control over it even after her move. This included power to change beneficiaries or trustees without their consent and ability to revoke the trust entirely with trustee consent. Therefore, he felt her actions related to this trust could be considered within Florida’s jurisdiction as she lived there when these decisions were made. Justice Black also disagreed with how much weight was given by majority towards physical presence of parties involved in determining state jurisdiction; instead emphasizing importance of individual's legal rights being affected by court judgments regardless where they reside physically. Furthermore, he criticized majority for creating uncertainty about states' abilities to adjudicate matters involving trusts managed out-of-state which might discourage people from setting up such arrangements due fear of potential legal complications arising from unclear jurisdictions rules set forth by this ruling.