Patch v. White was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1885. The plaintiff, Patch, had been arrested and convicted of violating an ordinance prohibiting the sale of liquor without a license. He argued that this violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because he had not received notice or an opportunity to be heard before being arrested and convicted. The court held that while it is true that individuals have certain rights protected by the Constitution, these rights do not extend so far as to require prior notice or hearing when someone has committed a crime in public view with no dispute over their identity or guilt. Therefore, they ruled against Patch on grounds that there was no violation of due process since he had clearly broken the law and did not need any further proceedings for conviction beyond what occurred at his arrest.

In Patch v. White, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which the cause of action arose outside of the state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. In dissent, Justice Field argued that states should be allowed to exercise their power to provide justice for all parties regardless of residency status or where the cause of action originated from. He noted that this would help protect citizens who are unable to access justice due to jurisdictional issues and ensure fairness in civil proceedings across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, he argued that allowing states this authority would promote interstate comity as well as uniformity among laws governing similar matters throughout different states.