The Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno case in 1981 revolved around a plane crash that occurred in Scotland, killing all on board. The aircraft was manufactured by the U.S.-based Piper Aircraft Company and maintained by Air Navigation and Trading Company Ltd., based in the UK. A representative for the estates of those killed filed suit against both companies in California, but it was dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction over Air Navigation. The representative then refiled in Pennsylvania where Piper is located; however, they moved to dismiss under forum non conveniens (a discretionary power allowing courts to dismiss a case where another court or forum may be more appropriate). They argued that since most evidence and witnesses were located overseas, Scotland would be a better venue for trial even though its laws might not favor plaintiffs as much as U.S law would have done. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 affirming dismissal under forum non conveniens doctrine without considering whether an alternative foreign jurisdiction's less favorable law applied - stating it should rarely be used as grounds for denial.

The dissenting opinion in the Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno case, delivered by Justice Marshall, argued that the majority's decision to allow a forum non conveniens dismissal was incorrect and unjustified. He believed that it undermined the plaintiff's choice of forum and gave too much weight to the defendants' convenience at trial. The dissent also criticized how lower courts were given broad discretion in deciding whether or not to dismiss cases based on this doctrine without clear guidelines from higher courts, leading to inconsistent rulings across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, he pointed out that American corporations should be held accountable for their actions overseas within U.S courts rather than forcing plaintiffs into foreign legal systems where they may face significant disadvantages.