In the case of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas v. Harris in 1913, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an injury to a railway employee and his subsequent compensation claim. The plaintiff, Mr. Harris was injured while working for the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company due to alleged negligence by another employee. He sued for damages under federal law but lost at trial court level because he had not provided notice of his injury within six months as required by state (Texas) law. On appeal however, it was determined that this requirement did not apply since he had filed his suit under federal rather than state law which does not have such time constraint stipulation for filing claims related to personal injuries suffered during employment with interstate commerce companies like railways.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas v. Harris argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation and application of legal principles related to negligence and liability. The dissent contended that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to establish a prima facie case of negligence on part of the railway company, which should have shifted the burden onto them to prove they were not negligent. They disagreed with the majority's view that plaintiff failed to provide enough evidence for this shift in burden proof. Furthermore, they believed it was inappropriate for an appellate court like Supreme Court to weigh conflicting evidence or judge credibility - tasks reserved for juries and lower courts respectively.