The U.S Supreme Court case Louisiana & Western Railroad Company v. Gardiner in 1926 revolved around a dispute over land ownership between the railroad company and Mr. Gardiner, who claimed to have purchased the disputed property from its original owner. The court had to determine whether or not the railroad company's right of way through that land was still valid after it ceased operations for two years due to financial difficulties during World War I, which resulted in abandonment of their tracks on this particular stretch of land. The lower courts ruled in favor of Mr. Gardiner, stating that by ceasing operations and removing their tracks, the railroad company forfeited its right-of-way claim over the property under Louisiana state law. However, upon appeal by the railway company arguing federal laws should apply instead as they were granted rights under an Act of Congress (1862 Pacific Railway Act), thus superseding state laws. In a unanimous decision led by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., The Supreme Court reversed these decisions ruling that federal law did indeed take precedence over state law in this matter because railroads are considered instrumentalities of interstate commerce; therefore any cessation or removal must be determined based on Federal standards rather than State ones.

In the dissenting opinion for Louisiana & Western Railroad Company v. Gardiner, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a judgment against the railroad company based on an alleged violation of safety statutes was flawed. The dissent contended that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove beyond reasonable doubt that such violations had occurred and directly caused harm to the plaintiff. Furthermore, they disagreed with how lower courts interpreted and applied state laws regarding railway safety measures in this case. They believed these interpretations were overly broad and unfairly penalized railroads for accidents which may not have been preventable through compliance with said laws. Therefore, they felt the ruling should be overturned as it set a dangerous precedent potentially leading to unjust outcomes in future cases involving similar circumstances.