In the case of Hills et al. Plaintiffs in Error vs Ross, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to sue in federal court because their dispute involved parties from different states and therefore fell under the Constitution's grant of diversity jurisdiction. However, Chief Justice John Marshall held that such disputes must be heard in state courts as long as there is no conflict between federal and state law or any other constitutional issue at stake. He reasoned that Congress did not intend for federal courts to interfere with matters which could be resolved within a single State’s judicial system without violating any rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws passed pursuant thereto. This decision established precedent for how cases involving diversity among litigants should be handled going forward; it also set forth important principles regarding when it is appropriate for a federal court to exercise its power versus leaving matters up to individual States' jurisdictions

In the case of Hills et al. Plaintiffs in Error v Ross, the dissenting opinion argued that a court should not be able to issue an injunction against a party who has already been found liable for damages by another court. The majority opinion held that such injunctions were permissible and could be issued even if there was no proof of actual damage or injury caused by the defendant's actions. However, Justice Chase dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that issuing an injunction without any evidence of harm would violate due process; secondly, he maintained that it was wrong to allow courts to grant relief beyond what had already been awarded in a prior judgment. He concluded his dissent with the statement "It is unjust and oppressive to give more than justice requires".