In the 1948 case Ex Parte Collett, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving federal jurisdiction over state court decisions. The petitioner, an injured railroad worker from Indiana, filed suit against his Kentucky-based employer in Alabama under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). After losing his case in Alabama and being denied a new trial by both lower courts and the state's supreme court due to lack of evidence supporting negligence claims, he sought relief from the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue at hand was whether or not Section 6 of FELA allowed for transfer of venue after final judgment had been rendered by a state court. In its decision, which favored Collett unanimously (9-0), it held that Congress intended Section 6 to allow such transfers even after final judgment if justice required it - effectively giving federal courts power to review certain aspects of state civil procedure. This ruling expanded access to federal courts for plaintiffs suing under FELA while also limiting states' ability to restrict their own residents’ choice of forum in these cases.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Collett, Justice Frank Murphy disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 3(1) of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He argued that this section was intended to give injured employees a choice between state and federal courts. However, he believed that it did not grant them an unrestricted right to choose their venue. Instead, he suggested that Congress had only sought to prevent employers from manipulating jurisdiction rules in order to disadvantage workers. Therefore, according to him, any restrictions on venue selection should be interpreted as applying equally to both parties involved in a lawsuit under FELA. Furthermore, he contended that allowing plaintiffs unlimited freedom in choosing their trial location could lead to forum shopping and other abuses of process which would undermine fair legal proceedings.