In the case of Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company v. Holmberg (1930), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company and reversed a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court that had awarded damages to an injured employee under state law. The plaintiff, Holmberg, was a switchman who suffered injuries while working for the railway company due to alleged negligence on part of his employer. He sought compensation under Minnesota's Employer's Liability Act which allowed employees to sue their employers for personal injury caused by negligence. However, Justice Butler argued that federal laws should apply as they were more relevant in this context since interstate commerce was involved - specifically referring to Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). According to FELA, an employee could only recover damages if he/she could prove that employer’s negligence directly led to their injury – a condition not met by Holmberg according his testimony. The court held that when it comes down conflicts between state and federal laws regarding liability in cases involving interstate commerce companies like railroads; federal law takes precedence over state law.

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company v. Holmberg (1930), Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to award damages based on an assumption of negligence was flawed. He contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence by the railway company in this case and therefore it should not be held liable for injuries sustained by Mr. Holmberg while he was working on a construction project near their tracks. The justice believed that the court had overstepped its bounds by making assumptions about what could or should have been done differently without concrete proof of wrongdoing or neglectful behavior from the railway company.