In the 1920 case of Bracht v. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Company, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to review a decision made by the Texas state court regarding an accident that occurred on one of the railway company's trains. The plaintiff, Mr. Bracht, had been injured when he fell from a moving train and sued for damages based on negligence by the railway company. The Texas court ruled in favor of Mr. Bracht and awarded him $10,000 in damages. The railway company appealed this decision to the U.S Supreme Court arguing that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove their negligence caused Mr.Brecht’s injuries.The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that it is not within its jurisdiction to review factual determinations made by state courts unless there has been a violation of federal law or constitutional rights which was not evident here.Therefore,the judgement rendered against them stood as final.

In the dissenting opinion for Bracht v. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Company, it was argued that the court majority misinterpreted and misapplied legal principles related to negligence and liability in railway accidents. The dissenting justices contended that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to establish a prima facie case of negligence on part of the defendant railway company, which should have shifted the burden of proof onto them to demonstrate they were not negligent. They disagreed with the majority's view that plaintiff failed to provide such evidence, arguing instead that circumstantial evidence provided could reasonably lead a jury to infer negligence by defendants. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's decision as undermining established precedent regarding railroad companies' duty of care towards their passengers and others using their facilities or services.