In the case of Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde, Carol L. Hyde sued the casket company for her husband's wrongful death due to exposure to asbestos in their products during his employment with them from 1962-1979. Initially, a Pennsylvania state court dismissed her claim stating that it was filed after the statute of limitations had expired as per state law which required filing within two years of discovering injury or disease caused by negligence or harmful conduct. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of Hyde arguing that an exception should be made because she could not have known about her husband’s illness before he died and thus couldn’t file suit within two years. The U.S Supreme Court reversed this decision upon further appeal by Reynoldsville Casket Co., ruling that states cannot alter federal statutes retroactively unless Congress has clearly permitted such changes. The court held that while states can create exceptions to their own laws regarding when lawsuits must be filed (statutes of limitation), they cannot do so if it conflicts with federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Reynolds Casket Co. v. Hyde, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow a plaintiff to recover damages twice for the same injury was inconsistent with traditional legal principles and could lead to unjust results. He pointed out that under common law, a plaintiff who had already been compensated by one defendant could not seek additional compensation from another defendant unless they were jointly liable or if there was some other special circumstance justifying it. In this case, he believed no such circumstances existed and thus disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Pennsylvania law allowing double recovery in product liability cases where multiple defendants are involved. He also expressed concern about potential abuse of this rule by plaintiffs seeking windfall profits rather than fair compensation for their injuries.