The U.S. Supreme Court case Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Burnette in 1915 revolved around a dispute between the railroad company and an employee, Burnette, who was injured while working on the job. The court had to decide whether or not the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) applied to this situation since it provides compensation for railway workers injured at work due to negligence of their employers. The main point of contention was if FELA could be invoked even though the injury occurred within state boundaries and not across state lines which would typically invoke federal jurisdiction under interstate commerce laws. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that FELA did apply in this case because railroads are instrumentalities of interstate commerce regardless of where injuries occur; thus affirming that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws when dealing with matters related to interstate commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Burnette argued that the majority's decision to deny compensation to Burnette, a railroad worker injured on the job, was unjust and inconsistent with previous rulings. The dissenting justices contended that there was sufficient evidence showing negligence on part of the employer which led directly to Burnette's injury. They believed that it should not be incumbent upon workers like Burnette to prove their employers' negligence beyond any doubt but rather demonstrate a reasonable probability of its existence based on available facts. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for placing an undue burden on employees by requiring them to anticipate potential dangers or risks associated with their work environment and take necessary precautions accordingly - something they felt was more appropriately within an employer’s purview.