In the case of United States v. Commonwealth and Dominion Line, Ltd., 1928, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law. The Commonwealth and Dominion Line (CDL), an Australian shipping company, was sued by the U.S government for unpaid penalties related to alleged violations of immigration laws. CDL had transported immigrants to America who were subsequently denied entry due to health reasons or because they lacked necessary documentation. Under existing legislation at that time, transportation companies were required to return such individuals back to their home countries at their own expense; failure would result in fines imposed by the US government. The main issue before court was whether these penalties could be enforced against foreign corporations with no physical presence within American territory except through agents conducting business on behalf of them. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction over CDL could not be established merely based on activities performed by its agents in America as it did not constitute 'doing business' under legal terms sufficient enough for establishing corporate presence. Therefore, since there wasn't any substantial connection between CDL's operations and American territory beyond occasional visits made by its ships into US ports while carrying out international trade activities - which is considered incidental rather than continuous & systematic contact - enforcement action couldn't proceed against it domestically without violating principles of international law regarding state sovereignty rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Commonwealth and Dominion Line, Ltd., 1928 argued that the majority's decision to hold a foreign corporation liable for damages under U.S. antitrust laws was an overreach of jurisdictional authority. The dissent contended that applying domestic law to regulate international commerce could lead to conflicts with other nations' sovereignty rights and potentially provoke retaliatory measures against American businesses operating abroad. They also expressed concern about the potential implications for future cases, fearing it would set a precedent where U.S courts could assert their power beyond national borders without due consideration for international legal principles or diplomatic relations.