In the case of Arnold Medberry, John Lawhead, Robert H. Nugent and Abner J. Dickenson v. The State of Ohio, the plaintiffs in error were challenging a decision by an Ohio court that had sentenced them to two years imprisonment for larceny from a steamboat on Lake Erie. They argued that they should not have been convicted because their actions did not constitute larceny under state law as it was defined at the time of their offense and thus violated due process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt even if it did not meet all elements required for larceny under state law at that time.

In the case of Arnold Medberry, John Lawhead, Robert H. Nugen and Abner J. Dickenson v The State of Ohio, the dissenting opinion argued that a state cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent. This is because states are sovereign entities with their own laws and constitutions which must be respected by other states as well as federal law. Furthermore, it was argued that allowing suits against a state would interfere with the rights of citizens to seek redress from their government through legal action if they feel wronged or aggrieved by any act or omission on behalf of said government. Finally, it was contended that such an allowance could lead to potential abuse since there may not always be sufficient evidence available for plaintiffs to prove their claims against a state in court proceedings due to lack of access to certain documents or records held exclusively by said state's officials and departments.