In the case of Francis et al. v. Southern Pacific Co., 1947, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Southern Pacific Company, a railroad corporation. The plaintiffs were employees who had been injured while working for the company and sought compensation under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). They argued that their injuries resulted from negligence on part of their employer as it failed to provide safe work conditions. However, they did not file their claims within three years after sustaining these injuries which is required by FELA's statute of limitations clause. The court held that this time limit was absolute and could not be extended due to ignorance or lack thereof regarding one’s rights under FELA or failure to discover an injury until after this period has expired. Therefore, even though some plaintiffs might have discovered their occupational diseases only after several years following exposure at workplace, they were barred from seeking damages because they didn't comply with FELA's three-year limitation rule.

In the dissenting opinion for Francis et al. v. Southern Pacific Co., Justice Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of negligence law and an unwarranted intrusion into state affairs. He contended that California had every right to establish its own rules regarding contributory negligence, which should not be overridden by federal courts unless they clearly conflict with federal laws or constitutional provisions. In this case, he saw no such conflict; rather, he believed that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) allowed states to maintain their own standards of care in personal injury cases involving railroad workers. Moreover, Justice Murphy criticized the majority for misinterpreting FELA as requiring uniformity across all states – a view he considered unsupported by either text or legislative history of the act.