In the 1923 case of Cudahy Packing Company of Nebraska v. Parramore, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over workers' compensation claims for injuries sustained in interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Mrs. Parramore, was seeking compensation following her husband's death while working for the defendant company. She claimed that her husband died as a result of negligence on part of his employer and thus she should be compensated under Florida’s Workmen’s Compensation Act. The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Parramore stating that although Mr.Parramore's work involved interstate commerce which would typically fall under federal jurisdiction, it did not prevent application of state laws regarding worker's compensation since there were no conflicting federal statutes at play here. This decision clarified that employees injured during employment involving interstate commerce could seek remedy through state workers’ compensation laws if no specific federal law applied to their situation.

In the dissenting opinion for Cudahy Packing Company of Nebraska v. Parramore, Justice Holmes 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 workers' compensation dispute and therefore it should have been heard by the Supreme Court. The justice believed that because an act of Congress was directly implicated in this case - namely, whether or not it superseded state law - it presented a significant constitutional issue worthy of review by the highest court in the land. Furthermore, he contended that dismissing such cases without hearing them could undermine public confidence in judicial fairness and consistency.