In the 1933 case of Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Hartley Brothers, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company, overturning a lower court's decision that had awarded damages to Hartley Brothers for losses incurred due to delayed shipment. The dispute arose when Missouri Pacific Railroad failed to deliver coal on time as per their agreement with Hartley Brothers who then sued for compensation citing breach of contract and negligence by the railway company. However, Justice Cardozo writing for majority held that under Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), a shipper must first file a claim with carrier before seeking redress in courts and failure to do so barred them from recovery unless they could prove fraud or intentional misconduct by carrier which was not demonstrated here. Therefore, despite acknowledging delay in delivery, Supreme Court reversed previous judgment stating procedural requirements were not met thus absolving Missouri Pacific Railroad from paying any damages.

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Hartley Brothers, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to maintain fences along their tracks was an overreach of judicial power and violated principles of federalism. The dissent contended that such regulations should be left up to individual states or Congress, not imposed by the courts. They also expressed concern about potential negative economic impacts on railroad companies due to increased costs associated with fence maintenance requirements, arguing this could lead to higher prices for consumers and potentially harm interstate commerce as well. Furthermore, they questioned whether there was sufficient evidence proving these fencing laws actually improved public safety enough to justify their imposition on private businesses.