The Carlo Poma case in 1920 revolved around the issue of maritime law and salvage rights. The steamship Carlo Poma, an Italian vessel, was stranded on a reef near San Juan, Puerto Rico during a storm. A U.S. tugboat named Rescue came to its aid and managed to save the ship from total loss by pulling it off the reef. Subsequently, the owners of Rescue filed for salvage compensation under American admiralty law against both the ship itself and its cargo (owned by different parties). However, due to international laws that limit foreign court jurisdiction over ships belonging to another country's nationals unless consent is given or necessary for justice administration purposes - known as "in rem" jurisdiction - there were questions about whether U.S courts had authority in this matter. In their decision, Supreme Court ruled that while American courts did have jurisdiction over such cases involving foreign vessels saved within U.S waters; they should exercise discretion when applying domestic laws which may conflict with principles of international comity (mutual respect between nations regarding legal matters). In this instance though since no objection was raised by Italy nor any conflicting Italian law identified; court found it appropriate to award salvage compensation based on merits of service rendered rather than nationality or location where services were performed.

The dissenting opinion in the case of The Carlo Poma (1920) argued that the majority's decision to hold an Italian ship liable for damages caused by a collision with another vessel was incorrect. This view held that there were significant errors made during the trial, including misinterpretations of international maritime law and negligence on part of both vessels involved in the accident. It also contended that it was unjust to place full responsibility on one party when both parties had contributed to causing the collision due to their failure to follow proper navigation rules. Furthermore, this perspective suggested that such decisions could potentially harm diplomatic relations between nations if foreign ships are unfairly treated within U.S jurisdiction. Therefore, according to this viewpoint, a more balanced approach should have been taken where liability is shared based on each party's degree of fault.