The U.S. Supreme Court case Mitchell, Insurance Commissioner of California v. Maurer et al., 1934, involved the issue of whether a state insurance commissioner had the authority to liquidate an insolvent domestic insurer's assets and distribute them among all creditors, including those outside the state. The defendants were policyholders who argued that they should be given priority over out-of-state claimants in receiving payments from the liquidation process. However, Justice Cardozo delivered a unanimous opinion for the court stating that under federal law and principles of equity, no preference could be given to local creditors at expense of those located elsewhere in such circumstances; thus ruling against Maurer and his fellow plaintiffs' claims for preferential treatment as Californian residents.

In the dissenting opinion for Mitchell v. Maurer, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a California law that allowed insurance companies to be sued in any county where they do business. He argued that this law violated due process rights by placing an undue burden on businesses and potentially subjecting them to unfair trials. According to Justice Cardozo, forcing a company to defend itself in any county simply because it does business there could lead to "forum shopping," where plaintiffs choose the most favorable location for their lawsuit rather than the most appropriate or convenient one. This could result in biased juries and unjust outcomes, undermining fairness and justice within the legal system.