In the case of In re Atlantic City Railroad, 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by an accident that occurred due to negligence on part of its employees. The plaintiff argued that as per common law principles, employers are responsible for their employee's actions during work hours and hence should compensate him for his injuries. However, the defendant countered this argument by stating that they had already provided compensation under a state statute which limited their liability in such cases. The court ruled in favor of the railroad company stating that while it is true employers can be held accountable for their employees' actions at work according to common law principles; if there exists a specific legislation addressing employer’s liability (like in this case), then those rules will apply instead of general common law rules. Therefore since the company had already compensated according to state laws limiting its responsibility towards accidents at workplace; it couldn't be made liable again under general tort claims.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Atlantic City Railroad, 1896 argued that the majority's decision to allow a receiver appointed by a federal court to operate and manage a railroad company without state interference was an overreach of federal power. The dissent contended that this ruling undermined states' rights and their ability to regulate corporations within their borders. It also expressed concerns about the potential for abuse if receivers were given too much authority without proper oversight or accountability. Furthermore, it questioned whether such actions could potentially infrive upon private property rights as well as violate principles of equity and fairness. Ultimately, the dissent believed that while federal courts had certain powers under bankruptcy law, they should not be able to interfere with state regulation or control over local businesses in this manner.