In the case of Schulz v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 1955, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The plaintiff, Schulz, was an administratrix for a deceased employee who had been killed while working on a railroad track owned by the company. She claimed that her decedent's death was due to negligence on part of his employer and sought damages under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). However, it was found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove negligence or violation of any safety statute by the company which could have contributed directly to causing harm or fatality to its employees as required under FELA. Therefore, despite acknowledging tragic circumstances surrounding this case where an employee lost his life during work hours at workplace premises; without concrete proof establishing liability against employer for such unfortunate incident - court couldn't hold them legally responsible for compensation claims made by plaintiff.

In the dissenting opinion for Schulz v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to allow a state court judgment to be re-litigated in federal court undermined principles of federalism and comity. He contended that once a state court has made a determination on an issue, it should not be open for reconsideration by another tribunal unless there is clear evidence of fraud or collusion. In this case, he believed no such evidence existed and thus disagreed with the majority's ruling which allowed Schulz to seek damages from Pennsylvania Railroad Co in federal court after her claim had been dismissed by a New Jersey state court. He also expressed concern about potential abuse of process if litigants could simply switch jurisdictions whenever they were dissatisfied with their initial outcome.