In the case of Tubbs v. Wilhoit, 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant in a civil suit for damages resulting from alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. The plaintiff, Tubbs, claimed that he purchased land in Kansas based on false representations made by Wilhoit who resided in Missouri at the time of transaction. However, service of process was executed while Wilhoit was temporarily present in Kansas. The Supreme Court held that even temporary presence within a state is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over an individual for purposes of serving process and conducting trial proceedings against them under due process principles outlined by Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution. Therefore, it upheld the decision rendered by lower courts which ruled in favor of Tubbs.

In the dissenting opinion for Tubbs v. Wilhoit, 1890, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Mr. Wilhoit was incorrect because it failed to consider important facts about the case. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how Mr. Tubbs' debt to Mr. Wilhoit had been calculated and felt that these discrepancies should have led to a different outcome in this case. The dissenters also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant laws and legal precedents, arguing they had been misapplied or misunderstood by their colleagues on the bench. They contended that if correctly interpreted and applied, these laws would support overturning rather than upholding the lower court's ruling. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential implications of this decision for future cases involving similar circumstances or issues – suggesting it could set an unfortunate precedent which might lead courts into error when dealing with such matters going forward. Overall, while acknowledging their respect for their fellow justices' views and intentions behind them; those who dissented from this Supreme Court judgment firmly believed its reasoning flawed - both factually as well as legally - hence making its conclusion unjustified.