In the 1905 case of Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Bohon, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when a passenger on one of their trains was injured due to an alleged negligence by a conductor who failed to provide assistance while she was exiting the train. The Kentucky Court had initially awarded damages to Mrs. Bohon based on state law that held common carriers liable for any injuries sustained by passengers due to even slight negligence from employees or agents of such carriers. However, upon appeal at federal level, it was argued that this interpretation conflicted with general principles governing liability in other jurisdictions where only gross negligence would warrant compensation under similar circumstances. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument stating that there should be uniformity across states regarding rules applicable to interstate commerce entities like railroads which often cross multiple jurisdictions during operations. Therefore, they overturned the lower court's decision and absolved Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company from paying damages as no evidence pointed towards gross negligence or misconduct on part of its employee.

In the dissenting opinion for Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Bohon, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds. He argued that there was a substantial federal question involved in this case because it concerned an interstate commerce issue. Specifically, he believed that whether or not a state could regulate rates of an interstate railway company was indeed a matter of national importance. Therefore, according to him, it should be within the purview of federal courts rather than state courts alone as decided by the majority ruling. This disagreement stemmed from his interpretation of Congress' power over interstate commerce under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) of U.S Constitution which he thought had been undermined by dismissing this case based on lack-of-jurisdiction argument.