The U.S. Supreme Court case Neirbo Co. et al v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., Ltd., 1939, revolved around the issue of consent to jurisdiction by foreign corporations in states where they have appointed agents for service of process under state law requirements. The plaintiff, Neirbo Company and others (stockholders), filed a suit against Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation in New York courts alleging mismanagement and fraud despite the corporation being incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. The defendant argued that it was not within the jurisdiction of New York courts as per federal law which requires suits against corporations to be brought either where they are incorporated or where they maintain their primary business operations. However, since Bethlehem had designated an agent for service of process within New York State as required by local laws for conducting intra-state commerce there, it was deemed to have given implicit consent to be sued there too according to Justice Hugo Black who delivered the opinion on behalf of a unanimous court. This landmark decision established that a corporation's designation of an agent for service can constitute "consent" thereby making them subject to personal jurisdiction even outside their home state if such appointment is mandated by local laws.

In the dissenting opinion for NEIRBO CO. et al. v. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., LTD., Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a corporation’s consent to be sued in a particular jurisdiction simply by appointing an agent there, arguing that it was not consistent with traditional legal principles and could lead to unfair results. He contended that corporations should only be considered as having given such consent if they have explicitly done so or if their actions clearly demonstrate intent to do so, rather than merely operating within a state or appointing an agent there for service of process purposes. The justice also expressed concern about potential abuse of this rule by plaintiffs who might strategically choose jurisdictions where they believe courts would be more favorable to them, thereby undermining fairness and equality in litigation.