In the case of Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Company, 1918, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Albion Vein Slate Company. The dispute arose when Fillippon claimed that he was owed overtime pay under a federal law which required employers to compensate their employees for working more than eight hours per day. However, this law only applied to those employed by or contracted with the government and not private companies like Albion Vein Slate Company where Fillippon worked as a slate miner. Therefore, since there was no contract between his employer and the government nor any statutory provision applicable to such circumstances at that time, it was held that Fillippon had no right to claim overtime compensation from his employer under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Company, it was argued that there should be no distinction between a contract implied in fact and one implied in law when determining whether an agreement falls under the jurisdiction of federal courts. The dissenting justices believed that if a promise is made by one party and relied upon by another to their detriment, then such an agreement should be enforceable regardless of whether it was explicitly stated or merely inferred from conduct. They contended that this principle is fundamental to contract law and its disregard undermines justice. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "suits at common law" as excluding cases involving contracts implied in law, arguing instead that this term encompasses all suits not specifically tried in equity or admiralty courts - including those based on quasi-contracts like the one at issue here.