In the case of Gravitt, Executrix et al. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. et al., 1976, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state court's decision could be reviewed by a federal court when it involved an issue of federal law that had not been raised in the original trial or appeal process at state level. The plaintiffs were suing for damages after their property was damaged during construction work carried out by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and its contractors. They claimed negligence on part of these entities led to this damage but did not raise any issues related to federal law in their initial suit or subsequent appeals within the Texas courts system. The U.S Supreme Court held that under Section 1257(3) of Title 28, they lacked jurisdiction over such cases where no substantial question regarding interpretation or application of US Constitution, laws/treaties has been presented before them as per due course from lower courts' proceedings; thus affirming judgment given by Texas State Courts without considering merits/demerits pertaining to alleged violation(s) concerning Federal Law(s).

In the dissenting opinion for Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case based on a lack of federal jurisdiction was incorrect. The dissent emphasized that while there may not have been diversity of citizenship between all parties, this should not automatically preclude federal jurisdiction if other factors are present. They pointed out that in cases where state law is unclear or unsettled, and significant policy issues are at stake, federal courts can play an important role in providing guidance and ensuring uniformity across states. In this particular case involving tort liability for emotional distress caused by wrongful death, they believed these conditions were met and thus felt it would be appropriate for a federal court to hear the case.