In the case of Thomas v. Taggart in 1907, the U.S Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who had been served with process while temporarily within the state's borders. The defendant, Mr. Taggart, was a resident of New York but was served with legal papers while visiting Indiana for business purposes related to his role as trustee of an estate being administered there. He argued that he should not be subject to Indiana's jurisdiction because his presence in the state was temporary and solely for trust-related matters. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that physical presence within a state is sufficient grounds for personal jurisdiction regardless of how temporary or purpose-specific such presence may be. It ruled that once physically present within a certain territory, one could be made answerable before its courts even if they were non-residents or only transiently located therein at time of service. This decision established important precedent regarding states' power over individuals found within their boundaries and clarified rules surrounding personal jurisdiction - principles which continue to shape American civil procedure law today.

In the dissenting opinion for Thomas v. Taggart, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding property rights and taxation. He contended that under Indiana law, which governed this case, a tax deed did not extinguish all prior interests in the property but merely conveyed whatever interest the state had acquired through its lien for unpaid taxes. Therefore, he believed that Mr. Thomas still retained an equitable interest in his land after it was sold at a tax sale to satisfy his delinquent taxes and could redeem it by repaying those taxes plus any penalties or costs associated with their collection within one year of such sale as provided by Indiana statute. The majority's ruling effectively denied him this right without due process of law contrary to Fourteenth Amendment protections according to Justice Harlan.