In the 1914 case of Longpre v. Diaz, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and personal injury liability. The plaintiff, Longpre, was an employee aboard a ship owned by Diaz when he suffered injuries due to alleged negligence on part of his employer. He filed suit in California seeking damages for his injuries despite having signed an employment contract in France that stipulated any legal disputes would be resolved under French law. The defendant argued that this clause should prevent litigation from proceeding in American courts. The Supreme Court disagreed with Diaz's argument and held that jurisdiction was appropriate within U.S courts because the incident occurred while the vessel was docked at a Californian port; thus making it subject to local laws regardless of where the employment contract had been signed or what it specified about jurisdictional matters. This ruling affirmed workers' rights to seek redress under US law if they are injured within its territory even if their contracts specify otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for Longpre v. Diaz, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to deny a French citizen's claim against a Mexican national was based on an incorrect interpretation of international law and jurisdictional principles. He contended that U.S courts should have jurisdiction over cases involving foreign nationals if they are present in the country and can be served with process. The justice also disagreed with the majority's view that recognizing such jurisdiction would infringe upon Mexico’s sovereignty, stating it is common practice for nations to exercise judicial authority over individuals within their borders regardless of nationality. Furthermore, he noted that denying this right could potentially harm American citizens abroad by encouraging other countries to adopt similar restrictive policies towards them.