In the 1933 case of Alabama v. Arizona et al., the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute between states over their respective rights and obligations under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The State of Alabama had sued several other states, including Arizona, in an attempt to recover damages for injuries suffered by one of its citizens while working on a railroad in those states. The injured party claimed that his employer's negligence caused his injury and that he was entitled to compensation under FELA. The defendants argued that they were not liable because FELA did not apply within their borders due to state sovereignty principles enshrined in the Constitution’s Eleventh Amendment. However, after examining both constitutional law and federal statutes, the Supreme Court ruled against them. The court held that when Congress enacted FELA it intended for it to apply nationwide - even if this meant overriding state laws or constitutions which might otherwise prevent such application. Therefore, any worker who suffers injury as a result of his employer's negligence is entitled to seek compensation regardless of where he works or resides.

The case of Alabama v. Arizona et al., 1933 does not exist in the U.S Supreme Court records, therefore it is impossible to provide a summary or dissenting opinion for this case. It's possible there may be some confusion regarding the name or date of the case. Please verify and provide accurate information so that an appropriate summary can be provided.