In the 1930 case of Smith, Administratrix v. Magic City Kennel Club, Incorporated et al., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that allowed for recovery of damages in cases where death is caused by negligence or wrongful act could be applied to non-residents. The plaintiff's husband had died as a result of injuries sustained at a dog racing track owned by Magic City Kennel Club in Florida. However, both parties were residents of Alabama and the incident occurred while they were visiting Florida on vacation. The defendants argued that since neither party was resident in Florida, its laws should not apply to them. The court ruled against this argument stating that it would lead to absurd results if people could escape liability simply because they are non-residents when an accident occurs within a state’s borders. Therefore, even though both parties were from Alabama and only temporarily present in Florida at the time of injury leading to death, they still fell under jurisdictional purview due to their physical presence during occurrence.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Smith v. Magic City Kennel Club, Inc., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting greyhound racing was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar issues and infringed upon individual liberties. The dissent contended that this ruling allowed for an overreach of governmental power into private affairs, asserting that if a person wishes to engage in an activity such as dog racing - which does not harm others or infringe upon their rights - they should be free to do so without government interference. They further argued that there were no compelling public health or safety reasons presented by the state justifying this prohibition, making it arbitrary and unreasonable under constitutional scrutiny. The dissent also expressed concern about potential implications for other forms of entertainment and recreation if such broad interpretations of regulatory powers were permitted.