In Burnett v. New York Central Railroad Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which allows railroad workers to sue their employers for injuries sustained on the job. The plaintiff, Burnett, had originally filed his suit in Ohio but it was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction over the defendant company. He then refiled in Illinois within six months of dismissal as allowed by state law; however, this filing occurred after FELA's three-year statute of limitations had expired. The question before the court was whether or not commencement of a lawsuit that is later dismissed tolls (pauses) FELA’s statute of limitations. The Supreme Court held that when a timely FELA action is commenced and later dismissed for improper venue, it does indeed toll the limitation period under federal law during pendency and until its final disposition so long as there has been no determination on merits and refiling occurs within reasonable time frame post-dismissal.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Burnett v. New York Central Railroad Co., argued that the majority's decision to allow tolling, or temporary suspension, of a statute of limitations period during federal proceedings was inconsistent with previous rulings and could lead to confusion and unpredictability in future cases. The dissent emphasized that statutes of limitations are designed to provide certainty by setting clear deadlines for legal claims, thereby preventing potential defendants from facing indefinite liability. By allowing exceptions based on federal-state jurisdictional issues, they believed this would undermine these principles and potentially open up a floodgate for similar requests for tolling in other contexts. They also expressed concern about the fairness towards defendants who may be disadvantaged by delayed litigation due to prolonged uncertainty over their potential liabilities.