In the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Duplak et al., 1931, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Erie Railroad Company against a claim made by Duplak and others for damages caused due to flooding from a storm water runoff allegedly exacerbated by railroad construction. The plaintiffs argued that the railroad company's alteration of natural drainage patterns led to increased damage on their properties during heavy rains. However, the court found no evidence proving negligence or misconduct on part of the railway company in its construction methods which could have contributed to an unnatural accumulation or diversion of water leading to flooding and subsequent property damage. Therefore, it was held that without proof demonstrating causation between actions taken by Erie Railroad Company and harm suffered by plaintiffs, they were not liable for damages claimed.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Duplak et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law which allowed an injured party to sue for damages outside of their home jurisdiction was flawed. The dissenters believed this interpretation unfairly burdened corporations with potential lawsuits in any jurisdiction where they conducted business, regardless of how minor their presence might be there. They contended that such a broad interpretation could lead to forum shopping and potentially unjust outcomes as plaintiffs sought out jurisdictions perceived as more favorable to their cause. Furthermore, they expressed concern about the implications for federalism, arguing that allowing states too much power over interstate commerce could disrupt national unity and economic stability.