In Riddle v. Moss, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against citizens of that same other state. The plaintiff in this case, William Riddle, was from Maryland and sued two defendants who were also from Maryland for breach of contract in Virginia's Circuit Court. The defendants argued that since all parties involved were citizens of the same out-of-state jurisdiction (Maryland), then Virginia did not have any authority or power to hear the case as it would be considered "diversity" jurisdiction which only federal courts can handle. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held that states are allowed to exercise their own judicial powers within their own borders regardless if all parties involved are from outside jurisdictions; thus affirming Virginia's right to hear such cases even when there is no diversity among its litigants. This decision established important precedent regarding how far states' rights extend into matters involving out-of-state litigants and has been cited numerous times throughout American legal history ever since its ruling in 1812.

In Riddle v. Moss, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. However, Justice Story dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had given state courts concurrent jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states; secondly, he contended that even if they did not have such authority under federal law, then it should be assumed as part of their inherent power as sovereign entities within the Union. In conclusion, Justice Story maintained that state courts should be allowed to exercise their own judgment in deciding matters concerning interstate disputes without interference from federal authorities or other states' laws.