In the case of O'Brien v. Wheelock, 1901, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court in Minnesota had jurisdiction over a land dispute between two parties from different states. The plaintiff, O’Brien, claimed that he had purchased land from Wheelock and later discovered that it was mortgaged to another party without his knowledge. He sought damages for fraud and misrepresentation. However, because both parties were not residents of Minnesota at the time of filing suit (O’Brien being an Iowa resident while Wheelock resided in Wisconsin), there arose questions about jurisdictional propriety under diversity statutes. The Supreme Court ruled against O'Brien's claim on grounds that federal courts did not have jurisdiction as per Section 629 of Revised Statutes which required complete diversity among litigants i.e., all plaintiffs must be citizens or residents of different states than all defendants for a federal court to exercise its diversity jurisdiction power. This decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements regarding diverse citizenship when seeking redress in Federal Courts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of O'BRIEN v. WHEELOCK argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Mr. O'Brien guilty of contempt for refusing to answer questions before a grand jury, was incorrect. The dissent contended that Mr. O'Brien had not been given adequate opportunity to consult with his attorney and therefore could not have knowingly waived his constitutional right against self-incrimination. Furthermore, it was suggested that the line of questioning pursued by the prosecution was irrelevant and immaterial to any legitimate investigation being conducted by the grand jury at that time; thus making it an abuse of power on their part rather than contemptuous behavior on behalf of Mr.O’Brien.