In the case of Liner et al. v. Jafco, Inc., et al., 1963, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights and compensation for land taken by eminent domain. The appellants were homeowners in an area designated for urban renewal by Miami's city commission under Florida law. They argued that they had not received just compensation for their properties which were condemned and seized by the appellee, Jafco Inc., a private corporation acting on behalf of the city to carry out redevelopment plans. The court ruled in favor of Jafco Inc., stating that there was no constitutional requirement to compensate homeowners based on potential future value after improvements are made or because their homes were being taken as part of a larger parcel rather than individually.

The dissenting opinion in the Liner v. Jafco, Inc., case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and would lead to unnecessary litigation. The dissenters believed that a bankruptcy court should have jurisdiction over all matters related to a debtor's estate, including claims against third parties who may be liable for some of the debtor's debts. They felt this approach would promote efficiency by allowing all issues to be resolved in one forum rather than requiring separate lawsuits in different courts. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of "related to" jurisdiction as too narrow and restrictive, arguing it undermined Congress' intent when drafting relevant legislation.