John F. Stein brought a case against William Bowman and others to the United States Supreme Court in 1839. At issue was whether or not an individual had the right to bring suit for damages caused by another person's negligence, even if that negligence did not result in physical injury or death. The court ruled in favor of John F. Stein, finding that he could indeed sue for damages resulting from someone else’s negligent behavior without having suffered any physical harm himself. This decision established a precedent which allowed individuals to seek compensation when they were wronged due to another party’s careless actions, regardless of whether those actions resulted in bodily harm or not. As such, this ruling has been cited as an important milestone on the road towards modern tort law and its recognition of non-physical injuries as grounds for legal action

In the case of John F. Stein vs William Bowman and others, the dissenting opinion was that a state court had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a party in another state. The majority opinion held that such an injunction could be issued by a state court if it involved property within its own borders, but Justice McLean argued that this would violate the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause which requires states to recognize judicial proceedings from other states. He further argued that Congress has exclusive authority over interstate commerce and thus should have been consulted before any action was taken by the courts. In conclusion, he believed that allowing one state court to interfere with another violated both constitutional principles as well as federal law.