In the case of Carroll et al. v. Lanza, Doing Business as Lake Charles Electric Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a conflict between state laws regarding workers' compensation benefits for an injured employee who worked in one state but lived in another. The plaintiff, Carroll, was a resident of Arkansas but was injured while working temporarily in Louisiana for his employer, Lanza's company based out of Louisiana. He received compensation under Louisiana law and then sought additional benefits under Arkansas law which were more generous than those provided by Louisiana. The Supreme Court held that it did not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV Section 1) of the Constitution to allow him to seek these additional benefits from Arkansas even though he had already been compensated under Louisiana’s laws because each state has its own interest in providing such protections to their residents or employees within their jurisdiction respectively; thus there is no requirement that one state must defer completely to another's laws when they have overlapping interests at stake.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Carroll et al. v. Lanza, Doing Business as Lake Charles Electric Co., argued that the majority's decision undermined state sovereignty and violated principles of federalism by allowing a Missouri compensation award to supersede an Arkansas law limiting such awards. The dissenters contended that this ruling effectively allowed one state to dictate policy to another, contrary to the Constitution's design for states' rights and powers within their own jurisdictions. They also pointed out potential practical problems with this approach, including confusion over which laws apply in multi-state disputes and unfairness towards defendants who could be held liable under different standards depending on where plaintiffs choose to sue them.