In the case of Kizer v. Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company, 1900, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law could regulate interstate commerce in a way that conflicted with federal regulations. The plaintiff, Kizer, had sued the railway company for damages after his livestock were killed on an unfenced portion of its track in Arkansas. An Arkansas statute required railroads to fence their tracks and made them liable for any damage caused by failure to do so. The defendant argued that this state law interfered with interstate commerce because it imposed additional costs on companies operating across state lines and thus violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which gives Congress exclusive power over interstate trade regulation. However, the Supreme Court ruled against this argument stating that while Congress has authority over interstate commerce laws; if they have not exercised such control then states can enact legislation as long as it does not discriminate or unduly burden out-of-state interests compared to those within its borders. Thus in this case since there was no conflicting federal regulation regarding fencing along railroad tracks at that time; therefore Arkansas' fencing requirement did not violate constitutional principles governing interstate commerce and hence upheld Kizer's claim against Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kizer v. Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company argued that the majority's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of Arkansas law, which they believed did not allow for a recovery under the circumstances presented by this case. They contended that there was no evidence to suggest negligence on part of the railway company and thus, it should not be held liable for damages caused due to unforeseen accidents or incidents beyond its control. The dissenting justices also expressed concern over setting a precedent where companies could be held responsible even when they had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent harm. This viewpoint emphasized strict adherence to existing laws and principles rather than expanding liability based on perceived fairness or equity.