In the case of In re Hohorst, 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a foreign corporation could be sued in any state where it does business or only in its home state. The petitioner, Hohorst, represented a German company that had been sued by an American firm in New Jersey for patent infringement. The German company argued that since they were not incorporated or had their principal place of business in New Jersey, the court there did not have jurisdiction over them. The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled against Hohorst's claim on behalf of his client. They held that if a foreign corporation is doing business within a certain state and has agents present there who can accept service on its behalf then it can indeed be subject to lawsuits filed within those states' courts regardless of where it is actually based or incorporated.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Hohorst, 1893, argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation and application of jurisdictional principles. The dissent contended that a foreign corporation doing business within a state should not be considered as being present within that state for purposes of federal jurisdiction. It was emphasized by the dissenters that such an expansive view could potentially lead to abuse and overreach, with corporations being subjected to lawsuits in states where they have minimal or incidental contacts. They also expressed concern about potential violations of due process rights if corporations were forced to defend themselves far from their home jurisdictions based on tenuous connections with other states. The minority justices believed this ruling would create unnecessary confusion and complexity regarding issues related to personal jurisdiction over foreign entities operating within U.S borders.