In the 1932 case of Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. et al. v. Ford, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company, reversing a decision by a lower court that had awarded damages to an injured worker under Florida's Workmen's Compensation Act. The plaintiff, Ford, was employed as a switchman and suffered injuries when he fell from a moving train car due to defective equipment on said car which belonged to another railway company but was being used by his employer at the time of accident. The main issue before the court was whether or not this act could be applied extraterritorially - i.e., outside state lines - given that part of Ford’s work involved crossing into Georgia from Florida where his employer operated its business. The Supreme Court held that while states have broad powers within their own territories they cannot regulate conduct beyond their borders; hence it found no basis for applying Florida law in this instance since injury occurred outside its jurisdiction (in Georgia). Therefore, it concluded that compensation should be determined according to laws applicable where injury took place rather than those prevailing in employee’s home state.

In the dissenting opinion for Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. et al. v. Ford, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of federal jurisdiction law, particularly those related to diversity cases involving corporations as parties. He contended that a corporation should not be considered a citizen of every state in which it does business or has property but only where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business - thus limiting the scope for diversity jurisdiction claims against corporations in federal courts. He also expressed concern about potential abuse by plaintiffs seeking to manipulate their choice of forum based on this broad interpretation of corporate citizenship, leading to unfairness and inefficiency in litigation proceedings.