In the case of Neese, Administrator v. Southern Railway Co., 1955, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Southern Railway Company. The plaintiff was an administrator for a deceased employee who had been killed while working on a railway line owned by the defendant company. The plaintiff argued that under North Carolina law, he should be able to sue for wrongful death damages even though his claim exceeded two years from when the incident occurred due to negligence on part of Southern Railway Company's employees which led to fatal injuries sustained by their worker. However, according to Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), such claims must be filed within three years from when injury or death occurs and not beyond this period as per state laws where incidents happen. Therefore, since more than three years had passed before filing suit against them in court; it was dismissed based upon FELA's statute limitations overriding any conflicting state legislation regarding time limits for bringing forth these types of lawsuits. The Supreme Court upheld this decision stating that federal law takes precedence over state law in matters relating to interstate commerce like railroads thus affirming dismissal due its untimely submission past federally mandated deadline set out under FELA rules governing employer liability cases involving railroad workers injured or killed during course their employment duties with such companies operating across multiple states nationwide.

In the dissenting opinion for Neese v. Southern Railway Co., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring racial segregation on railway coaches was not consistent with previous Supreme Court rulings, particularly Brown v. Board of Education which had declared segregated public schools unconstitutional just one year prior. He contended that if separate but equal facilities were inherently unequal in education, they must also be so in transportation. Furthermore, he believed this case presented an opportunity for the court to clarify its stance on segregation and provide guidance to lower courts dealing with similar issues; by failing to do so, it left them without clear direction and potentially perpetuated inequality under law.