The Hussey, Administratrix of Crane v. United States case in 1911 revolved around the interpretation and application of a statute regarding compensation for injuries sustained by employees while working on railroads engaged in interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Mrs. Hussey, was seeking damages from the government following her husband's death due to an accident that occurred while he was employed as a switchman at a railroad yard owned by the Chicago Junction Railway Company. The Supreme Court ruled against Mrs. Hussey stating that her husband’s employment did not fall under "interstate commerce" as defined within the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). This decision was based on evidence showing Mr.Crane had been involved exclusively in intrastate activities at his time of injury - specifically switching cars within Illinois state boundaries without any direct involvement with interstate traffic movement.

In the dissenting opinion for Hussey, Administratrix of Crane v. United States (1911), Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect because it failed to consider certain key facts in the case. He contended that there were significant discrepancies between what had been proven and what had been alleged regarding whether or not Mr. Crane had actually committed suicide while temporarily insane due to alcoholism, as his life insurance policy would not pay out if he did so intentionally while sane. Holmes believed these discrepancies should have led to a reversal of judgment rather than an affirmation by default simply because no exceptions were taken at trial. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of evidence related to Mr.Crane’s state of mind leading up to his death and felt this misinterpretation influenced their final decision unfairly.