In the 1916 case of McDonald v. Mabee, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving service of process requirements in civil lawsuits. The plaintiff, McDonald, had sued Mabee in Texas but served notice to him while he was temporarily residing in New York due to illness. The court held that this did not constitute proper service under Texas law and thus violated Mabee's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. This ruling established that for a state court to have jurisdiction over an individual defendant, they must be properly served within the state where the lawsuit is filed or voluntarily submit themselves to its jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for McDonald v. Mabee, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of Texas law and an incorrect application of constitutional principles. He contended that under Texas law, service by publication was sufficient to confer jurisdiction in cases where personal service could not be achieved due to defendant’s absence from state or concealment within it. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that such service violated due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment unless supplemented by additional notice methods like registered mail or personal delivery - a requirement absent in both federal rules and most states' laws at time. According to him, this extra burden imposed on plaintiffs would hinder their ability to pursue legitimate claims against elusive defendants while providing little added protection for defendants’ rights.