In the case of Chicago & North Western Railway Company v. Lindell, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when a train conductor was injured while on duty due to an alleged negligence by his employer, leading him to seek compensation for his injuries under federal law. However, it was found that at the time of injury he had been engaged in intrastate commerce and not interstate commerce as required by federal legislation governing such claims (Federal Employers' Liability Act). Therefore, he wasn't eligible for compensation under this act. The court held that even though some part of his duties involved interstate commerce tasks, since he was performing an intrastate task during the accident occurrence - specifically switching cars within state lines - it did not fall within purview of said federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago & North Western Railway Company v. Lindell, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to stop at all county seats disregarded previous rulings and principles of interstate commerce. The dissent emphasized that such laws should be evaluated based on their impact on interstate commerce, not merely their intent or purpose. They contended that this particular law had a significant effect on interstate trade by imposing unnecessary delays and costs onto railway companies operating across state lines. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases were judged previously; some were struck down while others upheld under seemingly arbitrary reasoning. This inconsistency undermined legal certainty and predictability which are crucial for businesses like railways which operate over long distances and across multiple jurisdictions.