In the case of Richard R. Keene v. John M'Donough, Keene brought a suit against M’Donough for damages due to an alleged breach of contract. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence presented in the lower court to support Keene's claim and therefore dismissed his complaint with prejudice. The Court held that it is not enough for one party to allege a breach of contract; rather, they must provide sufficient proof in order to establish their claims before any judgment can be made on the matter at hand. This ruling serves as an important reminder that parties involved in contractual disputes must provide adequate evidence if they wish to have their grievances heard by a court of law and receive justice accordingly.

In Richard R. Keene v. John M'Donough, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states and property located in another state. The majority opinion held that the lower court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority under the Constitution to hear cases between citizens of different states when there is no diversity of citizenship among them or when they are both from the same state as in this case. However, Justice McLean dissented on two grounds: first, he argued that Congress has exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce and thus could grant such authority; second, he contended that even if Congress had not granted such authority, then each State should be able to exercise its own sovereignty by granting courts within their borders jurisdiction over matters concerning out-of-state parties and property located outside their boundaries. He concluded by stating his belief that allowing States this power would promote justice while preserving federalism principles at the same time.