In the 1934 case of Minnie v. Port Huron Terminal Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Port Huron Terminal Company. The plaintiff, Minnie, had sued for damages after her husband was killed while working on a railroad owned by the company. She claimed that his death was due to negligence on part of his employer and sought compensation under Michigan's wrongful death statute. However, it was found that at the time of accident he wasn't performing duties related to interstate commerce but rather intrastate activities which were not covered under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). Therefore, federal law did not apply in this case and state law governed instead where contributory negligence could be used as defense unlike FELA where comparative negligence is applied. Since there were evidences suggesting possible carelessness from deceased himself contributing towards accident; court held that jury might have reasonably concluded such contributory negligence barring recovery under state laws hence affirming lower courts decision denying any relief to plaintiff.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Minnie v. Port Huron Terminal Co. et al., argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the rights and interests of both parties involved, particularly those of the defendant company. The dissenting justices believed that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of Port Huron Terminal Company, as required by law for a plaintiff to recover damages in such cases. They also expressed concern over potential implications this ruling could have on future litigation involving similar circumstances, fearing it may set a precedent where companies are held liable without clear proof of negligence or wrongdoing. Furthermore, they disagreed with how certain laws and precedents were interpreted and applied by their fellow justices in reaching their conclusion.