In the case of Van Dyke v. Cordova Copper Company in 1913, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a lower court had jurisdiction over a dispute involving mining claims in Alaska. The plaintiff, Van Dyke, claimed that he and his partners were entitled to certain mining properties based on their discovery and location of valuable mineral deposits. However, these claims conflicted with those made by the defendant company which also asserted rights to these lands under its own locations and purchases from prior locators. The main issue revolved around whether federal courts could exercise jurisdiction over such disputes when they arose within territory governed by non-federal law (in this case Alaskan territorial law). The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts did indeed have jurisdiction as long as there was diversity of citizenship between parties involved - meaning parties resided in different states or territories - regardless of where the disputed property was located. This decision clarified an important aspect regarding jurisdictions for cases involving land disputes across state lines; it established that if citizens from different states are involved in a legal conflict about property ownership then it falls under federal rather than local authority.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Van Dyke v. Cordova Copper Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles established by the court. The dissent emphasized that a corporation should not be considered a citizen of every state where it does business, but only in its state of incorporation or principal place of business. They contended that allowing corporations to be sued anywhere they do business would lead to an unfair burden on interstate commerce and could potentially discourage businesses from expanding into multiple states due to fear of litigation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of jurisdictional rules, arguing instead for stricter adherence to traditional concepts such as domicile and presence within a particular territory.