In the case of Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Boone, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when a train owned by Missouri Pacific Railroad hit and killed livestock belonging to Mr. Boone that had wandered onto their tracks in Arkansas. According to Arkansas state law at that time, railroads were required to fence their tracks or be held liable for any damages caused due to lack thereof; however, this was not applicable if animals broke through a proper fence. The court found that there was no evidence presented showing negligence on part of the railroad company or proving that it failed to maintain appropriate fencing along its track as per state laws. Therefore, it could not be held responsible for damage caused by stray livestock wandering onto its property and being struck by trains. This ruling emphasized how federal courts should respect and adhere closely with local laws unless they directly conflict with federal regulations or constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Boone, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a judgment against the railroad company based on an employee's injury was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant issues with how evidence had been presented and interpreted in this case. It emphasized that no clear negligence could be attributed directly to the railroad company as cause of Boone’s injuries, making it unjustifiable to hold them liable for damages. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in testimonies regarding whether or not safety rules had been violated by employees at work during time of accident - which if proven true would shift blame away from employer onto workers themselves violating established protocols meant for their own protection. Therefore, according to this viewpoint, due process wasn't properly served because these crucial factors weren’t adequately considered before reaching a verdict.