In the case of Patterson et al. v. Mobile Gas Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mobile Gas Company. The plaintiffs, Patterson and others, had sued for damages caused by a gas explosion on their property which they alleged was due to negligence on part of the defendant company in maintaining its gas lines. However, it was found that there were no federal questions involved as per jurisdictional requirements under Section 237(a) of Judicial Code (28 USCA §344). Therefore, this matter should have been dealt with at state level rather than being escalated to federal courts. The court also noted that even if such a question existed regarding whether or not Alabama law allowed recovery for pure economic loss without physical harm or threat thereof - an issue upon which lower courts disagreed - it would still be inappropriate for review because it wasn't properly raised before trial court nor decided by state supreme court. Thus, while acknowledging potential importance and difficulty surrounding issues like these within tort law context generally speaking; ultimately however they held that given circumstances here specifically – namely lack any relevant federal question plus failure raise said issue appropriately below – dismissal was warranted accordingly.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Patterson et al. v. Mobile Gas Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of the gas company, was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law and public policy. The dissent contended that there was an implied warranty on behalf of the gas company when they sold their product to consumers, even if no explicit warranty existed within any written agreement between both parties. This implied warranty should have protected consumers from harm caused by defects or impurities in the gas supplied by the company. Furthermore, they believed that this protection should not be waived simply because customers continued using their service after becoming aware of potential issues with its quality or safety - as long as these problems were not due to misuse on part of those customers themselves.