In the case of Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. New Jersey Wood Finishing Co., 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing (3M). The dispute arose when New Jersey Wood Finishing Company sued 3M for damages caused by a defective adhesive product supplied by 3M that resulted in fire damage to their property. However, it was revealed during proceedings that New Jersey Wood had been using this product contrary to explicit warnings provided by 3M about potential risks and safety measures required while handling the adhesive. Therefore, despite acknowledging that the product was indeed faulty, which under normal circumstances would have made them liable for damages, the court held that since New Jersey Wood knowingly disregarded these instructions and warnings from 3M regarding safe usage of their product - they were responsible for any resulting harm or loss incurred due to such misuse.

In the dissenting opinion for Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. New Jersey Wood Finishing Co., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to apply federal common law in this case was inappropriate and unnecessary, as it disregarded established principles of state sovereignty and federalism. He contended that there were no compelling reasons to override New Jersey's existing laws governing corporate liability for pollution damages, which he believed adequately addressed the issues at hand. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential overreach by the federal judiciary into matters traditionally handled by states under their police powers, such as environmental regulation and public health protection. In his view, unless a clear constitutional or statutory mandate exists for applying federal law in these areas - which he did not believe was present here - respect for our system of dual sovereignty requires deference to state legal regimes.