In the 1891 case of New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad Company v. Jopes, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when a train owned by the company collided with a wagon driven by Mr. Jopes, resulting in his death. His widow filed a lawsuit against the company seeking damages for her husband's wrongful death under Mississippi state law where it occurred. However, since both parties were from different states (the plaintiff was from Alabama while defendant was incorporated in Louisiana), federal jurisdiction applied according to diversity statute which required that all actions be tried as per federal common law rather than state laws at that time. The court held that there is no general common law providing remedy for personal injuries caused negligently; hence Mrs.Jopes could not recover any damages under federal jurisdiction despite having valid claim under Mississippi State Law.The decision emphasized on Erie Doctrine which later led to change stating Federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.

In the dissenting opinion for New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad Company v. Jopes, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law requiring railroads to provide separate but equal accommodations for black and white passengers violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenting justices contended that this law promoted racial discrimination by mandating segregation based on race, which they believed contradicted principles of equality under federal law. They also expressed concern about potential harm caused by such laws, including stigmatization and perpetuation of racial stereotypes. Furthermore, they questioned whether segregated facilities could truly be considered "equal," given inherent disparities in quality between them due to societal prejudice at that time.