In the case of Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Martin et al., 1930, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when two employees sued for damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) after being injured on duty due to alleged negligence by their employer, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company. However, both injuries occurred outside of states where FELA was applicable and thus were not covered under its provisions according to lower courts’ rulings. Upon appeal, however, it was decided that as a federal law designed to protect interstate commerce workers regardless of location within United States boundaries or territories; FELA should apply nationwide without geographical restrictions imposed by individual state laws or court interpretations thereof. Therefore, even though injuries happened outside areas previously considered under FELA jurisdiction - they still fell within its protective scope because they involved interstate commerce employees working for an American company.

In the dissenting opinion for Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Martin et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a state court to interpret and apply federal law in this case was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Supreme Court. He contended that it is not within a state court's jurisdiction to determine how federal laws should be interpreted or applied, particularly when such interpretations could potentially conflict with those of other states or federal courts. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential inconsistencies arising from allowing individual states to interpret national legislation differently, which would undermine uniformity in its application across all jurisdictions. In his view, only federal courts have the authority and expertise necessary to accurately interpret and apply national laws consistently throughout all jurisdictions.