In the case of Lehman Brothers v. Schein et al., 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts must stay proceedings if there is a related state court proceeding pending. The dispute arose when Lehman Brothers sued Schein in both New York State and Federal Courts over alleged securities fraud. While the federal suit was still ongoing, a judgment was rendered by the state court which favored Schein. Consequently, Lehman Brothers requested for dismissal of their own federal suit but were denied by lower courts on grounds that they had not shown any compelling reason to do so. The Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that under Colorado River Water Conservation District v United States (424 U.S 800), it's mandatory for federal courts to defer to parallel state-court litigation unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting interference with such jurisdictional respect between two sovereigns - an exception which did not apply here according to them.

In the dissenting opinion for Lehman Brothers v. Schein et al., Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to remand the case back to state court was unnecessary and potentially disruptive. He contended that there was no ambiguity in federal law regarding arbitration, as interpreted by previous Supreme Court decisions, which clearly stated that federal courts had jurisdiction over such matters even if they involved questions of state law. Furthermore, he expressed concern about creating a precedent where cases could be bounced between state and federal courts based on differing interpretations of legal issues. This would not only cause confusion but also delay justice for litigants who were seeking resolution of their disputes.