In Robinson v. Lundrigan, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a lower court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of Massachusetts against citizens of Rhode Island and New York for alleged fraud in connection with land transactions in Florida. The defendants argued that the case should have been dismissed because it involved real estate located outside the state where the suit was filed (Massachusetts). However, the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld its longstanding principle that federal courts can hear cases involving out-of-state property if they involve personal claims or disputes between parties rather than direct issues about property rights. In this instance, since Robinson's claim centered on allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation rather than any dispute over title or possession of Florida land itself, it fell within this category and thus could be heard by a Massachusetts court.

In the dissenting opinion for Robinson v. Lundrigan, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Lundrigan was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of the law regarding property rights and inheritance. The dissenting justices believed that under Massachusetts law, where this case originated from, Robinson should have been recognized as having a valid claim on certain properties following her husband's death. They contended that by not recognizing her claim, both the lower court and now Supreme Court had effectively stripped her of legal protections provided by state laws governing marital property rights and inheritance. This view held that such actions were contrary to established legal principles concerning these matters.