In the case of Erie Railroad Company v. Purucker, Administratrix of Marietta in 1916, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an accident that occurred at a railroad crossing. The plaintiff's husband was killed when his vehicle collided with one of Erie Railroad’s trains. The plaintiff argued that the train did not give proper warning signals and thus violated Ohio state law which required such warnings to be given by all trains approaching public highway crossings. However, the defendant (Erie Railroad) claimed federal laws governed their operations and they were not bound by state regulations regarding safety measures at crossings. The court held in favor of Erie Railroad stating that interstate commerce is under federal jurisdiction and therefore exempt from certain local or state laws unless Congress has specifically stated otherwise. This ruling established precedent for future cases where conflicts arise between federal regulation over interstate commerce and individual states' attempts to regulate aspects within their borders.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Erie Railroad Company v. Purucker, Administratrix of Marietta argued that the majority's decision to uphold a verdict for damages against the railroad company was incorrect. The dissent believed that there was not enough evidence presented at trial to prove negligence on behalf of the railroad company. They contended that it is possible for accidents to occur without any party being negligent and thus liable for damages, and they felt this may have been such a case. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight was given by the jury and court to certain pieces of evidence over others during deliberations about whether or not negligence had occurred.