In the 1916 case of McCluskey, Administrator of Nordgard v. Marysville & Northern Railway Company et al., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railway company could be held liable for an accident that resulted in the death of one its employees. The deceased employee's administrator argued that negligence on part of the railway company led to unsafe working conditions which caused his death. However, upon review, it was determined by lower courts and affirmed by the Supreme Court that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove negligence on behalf of Marysville & Northern Railway Company. Therefore, they were not found responsible for compensating any damages related to this unfortunate incident.

In the dissenting opinion for McCluskey v. Marysville & Northern Railway Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of Washington state law and an overreach of federal authority. He contended that it is not within the purview of federal courts to interpret or apply state laws unless there is ambiguity or conflict with federal legislation. In this case, he believed that Washington’s statute clearly established liability for railway companies in cases where employees were injured due to negligence by fellow workers, regardless if they are superior officers or not. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's ruling which exempted superiors from such responsibility and held only corporations liable under certain conditions. Holmes also criticized his colleagues' reliance on common-law principles rather than adhering strictly to statutory interpretation as per their judicial duty.