In the case of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al. v. Brady, 1932, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company and against an injured employee seeking compensation for his injuries under a federal law known as Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiff was a switchman who had been injured while attempting to couple two cars on a track that was allegedly unsafe due to its uneven surface and debris present around it. However, the court held that there wasn't sufficient evidence proving negligence by the employer or showing that such conditions directly caused his injury. Therefore, despite FELA's intention to protect railway workers from harm resulting from their employers' negligence, this ruling set precedent emphasizing employees’ responsibility to prove direct causation between alleged negligent conditions and sustained injuries.

In the dissenting opinion for Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al. v. Brady, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and an unwarranted intrusion into state affairs. He contended that it was not within the purview of federal courts to interfere with state laws unless they were in clear violation of constitutional rights or federal statutes, which he did not believe to be true in this case. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where federal courts could nullify state laws based on their own interpretation rather than relying on explicit constitutional or statutory provisions as guides for judgment.