In the case of Marande v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company, 1901, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railway company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who was working on a train that crossed state lines. The plaintiff, Marande, had been injured while working as a brakeman on one of the defendant's trains in Louisiana and sought compensation under Texas law. However, because he was employed in interstate commerce at the time of his injury and due to federal regulations governing such employment relationships (the Employer’s Liability Act), it fell under federal jurisdiction rather than state jurisdiction. The court ruled against Marande stating that since his work involved crossing state lines - which is considered interstate commerce - any disputes arising from this employment were subject to federal laws instead of individual states' laws where incidents might have occurred or where companies are based. This decision reinforced that employees engaged in interstate commerce fall within exclusive purview of Federal Law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Marande v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and equity. The dissent contended that there was no legal basis for holding a railway company liable for damages caused by an employee who acted outside his scope of employment, without any prior knowledge or consent from his employer. It further asserted that such liability would impose an undue burden on businesses and could potentially lead to unjust outcomes. The minority justices believed that the court should have adhered to traditional rules governing vicarious liability, which generally limit an employer's responsibility to acts committed by employees within their assigned duties and with their employer’s approval.