In the 1891 case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether or not hearsay evidence could be admitted in a court trial. The case involved an insurance company that refused to pay out a life insurance policy on the grounds that they believed fraud had been committed by Mrs. Hillmon and her husband, who allegedly faked his own death for financial gain. The key piece of evidence was a letter written by another man stating he intended to travel with Mr. Hillmon - suggesting Mr.Hillmon might still be alive as this man's body was found instead of Mr.Hillmons'. However, this letter is considered hearsay since its author wasn't available for cross-examination (he being presumably dead). In their decision, the Supreme Court allowed for certain exceptions to the rule against hearsay evidence if it provides insight into someone’s future intentions rather than past events or actions – known as “state-of-mind” exception which has significantly influenced American jurisprudence regarding admissibility of such evidences.

In the dissenting opinion for Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's decision to allow hearsay evidence in this case. He argued that it was a dangerous precedent to set as it could lead to potential abuses and miscarriages of justice in future cases. According to him, allowing such evidence would undermine one of the fundamental principles of law - that all testimonies should be subjected to cross-examination so their credibility can be properly assessed. Furthermore, he contended that there were no compelling reasons or exceptional circumstances in this particular case which warranted deviating from established legal norms and procedures regarding admissibility of evidence.