In the case of Huffman v. Boersen, 1971, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over jurisdiction in relation to an automobile accident that occurred on a military base. The plaintiff was a civilian employee who had been injured by another civilian employee while both were working at Fort Benjamin Harrison in Indiana. The defendant argued that since they were federal employees and the incident took place on federal property, it should be handled under federal law rather than state law as initially filed by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court ruled against this argument stating that even though they were employed by the Federal Government and their injury occurred on Federal property, it did not automatically mean exclusive jurisdiction rested with Federal courts or laws. Instead, it held that state courts could also have concurrent jurisdiction over such cases unless Congress has explicitly stated otherwise - which wasn't applicable here. This decision clarified how jurisdictions apply in situations involving incidents occurring within federally owned properties but involve non-military personnel or activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Huffman v. Boersen, the justice argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of federal law and an overreach of judicial authority. The justice believed that Congress intended to allow states to regulate their own insurance industries without interference from federal antitrust laws. They contended that by applying these laws in this case, the court was undermining state sovereignty and disrupting a long-standing balance between state and federal power. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on how broadly antitrust exemptions should be applied within insurance industry practices; arguing instead for a narrower interpretation which would limit such exemptions only to those activities directly related to underwriting or policy-related matters rather than all business operations as decided by the majority ruling.