In Tullock v. Mulvane, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bankruptcy and jurisdictional issues. The case centered around Mr. Tullock, who had filed for bankruptcy in Missouri but owned property in Kansas that was sold to pay his debts. A lawsuit arose when Mr. Mulvane claimed he held a mortgage on this property which should be paid before other creditors were compensated from the sale proceeds of the bankrupt's estate. The court decided that while federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to bankruptcy proceedings, state courts are not prohibited from adjudicating claims related to properties within their jurisdictions involved in those proceedings provided they do not interfere with the administration of the bankrupt’s estate by federal courts or contradict their orders. Thus, it upheld an earlier ruling by Kansas' highest court stating that it did indeed have jurisdiction over disputes concerning real estate located within its borders even if said property is part of a federally administered bankruptcy proceeding elsewhere.

In the dissenting opinion for Tullock v. Mulvane, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a creditor to seize property from a debtor in another state violated principles of federalism and due process. The dissent contended that this ruling effectively allowed creditors to bypass local courts and laws, undermining states' rights and protections for debtors. It also raised concerns about potential abuses of power by creditors who could now pursue debts across state lines without any regard for differing state laws or procedures. Furthermore, the dissent questioned whether such seizures were even constitutional under the Due Process Clause since they potentially deprived individuals of their property without proper legal proceedings or safeguards in place.