In the case of Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company v. McGinn, 1921, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when a train owned by Oregon-Washington Railroad hit and killed two horses belonging to Mr. McGinn who had left them unattended on an unfenced part of his property that was adjacent to the railway track. The state court held that under Washington law, railroads were required to fence their tracks and were liable for damages if livestock wandered onto unfenced sections and got injured or killed as a result. However, upon appeal at federal level, it was determined that this state law conflicted with federal laws which did not require fencing along railways unless specifically directed by Congress or relevant authorities such as Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Therefore, since no such directive existed in this case from either Congress or ICC requiring fences along its lines within Washington State boundaries where incident occurred; hence liability could not be imposed on railroad company based solely on violation of conflicting state statute.

In the dissenting opinion for Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company v. McGinn, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a state law that required railroads to compensate employees for work-related injuries regardless of negligence on part of either party. He argued that this law was unconstitutional as it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving railroad companies of their property without due process. He believed that employers should only be held liable if they were found negligent or at fault in some way and not simply because an injury occurred while someone was working for them. This, he contended, amounted to an unfair imposition on businesses and could potentially lead to abuse by workers seeking compensation under false pretenses.