In the case of Arnold v. Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co., 1956, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide on a dispute between an oil and gas leaseholder (Arnold) and a railway company over mineral rights in Texas. The railway company had granted Arnold's predecessor-in-interest an oil and gas lease but later claimed that it only owned surface rights to the land, not mineral rights. The court held that under Texas law, when a party conveys land without expressly reserving mineral rights, they are presumed to have conveyed those as well unless there is clear evidence showing otherwise. In this case, no such evidence existed so the presumption stood; therefore ruling in favor of Arnold who could continue his extraction operations unhindered by claims from Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Company.

In the dissenting opinion for Arnold v. Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co., Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He argued that FELA was not intended to provide a federal cause of action for every injury sustained by a railroad worker, but rather only those injuries caused by negligence on part of the employer. The justice contended that there was no evidence presented in this case to suggest any negligence from the railway company leading to Arnold's injury. Furthermore, he criticized his colleagues for expanding FELA beyond its original intent and warned against judicial legislation which could potentially undermine Congress’s authority over interstate commerce regulation. In essence, Justice Frankfurter believed that it should be up to Congress - not courts - to decide whether or not liability without fault should be imposed upon employers under FELA.