In the 1934 case Waco v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., the Supreme Court of the United States addressed a jurisdictional issue related to an appeal from a district court's dismissal order. The city of Waco, Texas had filed suit against U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company in state court over a bond dispute, but it was removed to federal court due to diversity jurisdiction. However, upon realizing that complete diversity did not exist (a requirement for federal jurisdiction), the District Court dismissed U.S.F.&G from proceedings while retaining its own jurisdiction over remaining parties involved in separate claims within same lawsuit. The Supreme Court ruled that this partial dismissal could be appealed immediately because it effectively put an end to part of litigation even though other parts remained unresolved at lower level - thus making it "final" under Section 128(a) of Judicial Code which governs appellate procedure. This decision clarified when orders are considered final for purposes of appeal and established precedent regarding how courts should handle cases with multiple parties where only some meet requirements for specific types of judicial review.

The dissenting opinion in the WACO v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. case argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case, as it was a matter of state law and therefore outside its purview. The dissenters believed that allowing federal courts to intervene in such cases would disrupt the balance between state and federal authority, undermining states' rights to govern their own affairs without interference from national institutions. They also expressed concern about setting a precedent for future interventions by federal courts into matters traditionally handled by states, potentially leading to an erosion of local autonomy and self-governance.