In the case of Lamb v. Cramer et al., 1931, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for sale of land in California by an Arizona resident to another Arizona resident could be enforced in California courts. The plaintiff, Lamb, argued that since he had never been physically present in California and did not own any property there at the time of making or performing his contract, he should not be subject to its jurisdiction. However, the defendants contended that because the subject matter of their agreement (the land) was located within state lines and they intended it to have effect there, jurisdiction was appropriate. The court ultimately sided with Lamb's argument and ruled against enforcing this out-of-state contract under Californian law due to lack of personal jurisdiction over him as per Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause which prohibits states from depriving "any person" without due process rights including those related to territorial reach/jurisdictional limits on state power over individuals/entities outside their borders unless they have certain minimum contacts/links/ties with forum state such as presence/residence/business activities/property ownership/etc.

In the dissenting opinion for Lamb v. Cramer, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to reverse a lower court ruling was based on an incorrect interpretation of federal law regarding land patents. He contended that the plaintiff had not established clear title to the disputed property and thus should not be granted relief by way of quiet title action. According to him, it is necessary for a claimant in such cases to prove their ownership beyond reasonable doubt before they can seek remedy against alleged trespassers or infringers upon their rights as owners. The burden of proof lies with them because they are essentially asking courts to enforce their claims over others'. In this case, he believed that there were still unresolved issues concerning whether or not certain lands included within patent boundaries actually belonged to plaintiff under terms of original grant from government; these uncertainties made it impossible for him/her establish clear ownership over all parts claimed territory.