The U.S. Supreme Court case Taylor v. Sturgell (2007) revolved around the issue of "virtual representation," a legal doctrine that allows a person to be bound by a judgment even if they were not party to the lawsuit, because their interests were adequately represented by someone else who was party to it. The dispute began when Greg Herrick sought access to documents related to an antique aircraft held by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). After his request was denied, he sued but lost in court. Subsequently, Brent Taylor made an identical request and also sued after being denied; however, this time FAA argued that Taylor's suit should be dismissed due its similarity with Herrick's previous unsuccessful lawsuit - invoking virtual representation as both men had similar interests in obtaining same documents for restoring vintage planes. The Supreme Court ruled against FAA stating that there are strict limitations on when one person may stand in for another in litigation and rejected broad application of virtual representation concept which could undermine principles of due process if applied too broadly or arbitrarily.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Taylor v. Sturgell argued that the majority's decision to reject "virtual representation" and impose a strict interpretation of preclusion law was too rigid. The dissent felt this approach failed to consider practical realities, such as situations where two parties share identical interests or when one party is unable to present their case adequately due to financial constraints or other reasons. They believed that these circumstances should allow for exceptions from traditional rules against nonparty preclusion, which bars a person from relitigating issues already decided in previous litigation by someone else with similar legal interests. The dissent also expressed concern about potential abuse of judicial resources if every interested individual had an independent right to litigate the same issue repeatedly without any limit.