In Hopkins v. Lee, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against a defendant who resided in that same other state. The plaintiff argued that since he and the defendant were citizens of different states, only federal courts could hear their dispute. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that it was within the power of each individual state to determine its own rules for determining when its courts have jurisdiction over cases involving out-of-state parties. In this case, Maryland's laws gave its courts authority to hear disputes between two nonresidents if one party owned property in Maryland or if both parties agreed to submit themselves to Maryland's jurisdiction; neither condition applied here so there was no basis for exercising jurisdiction under Maryland law. As such, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s suit on jurisdictional grounds without reaching any decision on merits or liability issues raised by either side in their pleadings before lower court proceedings began

In Hopkins v. Lee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority, as this would be in violation of the Constitution's grant of exclusive federal judicial power over cases between citizens from different states. However, Justice Johnson dissented and argued that there is no constitutional prohibition against state courts exercising concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts in certain matters where both parties are citizens of the same state. He further noted that Congress has never passed any law prohibiting such action and thus concluded that it should be allowed for those cases which do not involve questions arising under treaties or laws made by Congress itself. Furthermore, he asserted that allowing concurrent jurisdiction would help ensure justice is served more quickly than if all disputes were required to go through lengthy appeals processes at the federal level alone.