In the case of Mercantile National Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau, Receiver (1962), the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Langdeau, deciding that a federal court did not have jurisdiction over a state-appointed receiver for an insolvent insurance company. The dispute began when Mercantile National Bank attempted to collect on promissory notes from United States Casualty Company and its receiver, Langdeau. However, Texas law prohibited suits against receivers without consent from the state's commissioner of insurance or approval by a local court where receivership proceedings were pending. Despite this rule, Mercantile filed suit in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction - arguing that since they were incorporated in different states (Mercantile being incorporated under national banking laws while U.S Casualty was chartered under Texas law) it gave them grounds to sue in federal courts instead of state ones. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that allowing such action would interfere with Texas' ability to regulate its own domestic corporations and thus upheld the decision made by lower courts dismissing the bank's claim due to lack of jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Mercantile National Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of federal jurisdiction. He contended that a state court receiver should not be able to sue in federal court simply because they are an officer of the state; rather, there must be a substantial claim arising under federal law. In this case, he believed no such claim existed as it involved only questions of contract interpretation and Texas banking law - matters traditionally within state purview. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that diversity jurisdiction applied since both parties were from Texas. Lastly, Harlan expressed concern about potential abuse by receivers seeking favorable forums or evading local courts' control over their actions if allowed to litigate freely in federal courts without meeting traditional requirements for subject matter jurisdiction.