In the 1896 case of In re Alix, petitioner, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over jurisdiction in bankruptcy proceedings. The petitioner, Alix, had been declared bankrupt by a federal court in Louisiana and his assets were being administered by that court when he moved to Texas. A creditor then initiated separate bankruptcy proceedings against him in Texas. Alix petitioned for these new proceedings to be dismissed on grounds that they violated the exclusive jurisdiction of the Louisiana court overseeing his existing bankruptcy case. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alix's argument stating that once a person has been adjudged bankrupt and their estate is under administration by one federal district court, no other such courts can entertain or proceed with another petition for involuntary bankruptcy against them until after final decree closing up or dismissing first proceeding has been entered. This decision established an important precedent regarding jurisdictional issues within federal courts handling concurrent cases involving same parties but different matters; it also clarified how conflicts between multiple ongoing insolvency processes should be resolved under US law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Alix, 1896, is not readily available. This Supreme Court case involved a petitioner named Joseph Alix who was convicted for murder and sentenced to death by hanging. The main legal question revolved around whether or not his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment due to his physical condition at that time - he had tuberculosis which made him cough violently and frequently. However, without access to specific details about any dissenting opinions given during this case, it is impossible to provide an accurate summary of them.