The Suttle v. Reich Bros. Construction Co., et al case in 1947 revolved around a dispute over the death of an employee at a construction site managed by Reich Brothers Construction Company, which was working on a federal project under the United States Housing Authority (USHA). The plaintiff, Mrs. Suttle, argued that her husband's death resulted from negligence on part of the company and sought compensation under Virginia state law for wrongful death. However, the defendants contended that they were immune to such claims because they were operating as contractors for USHA - thus making them agents of federal government and subject only to Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), not state laws. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs. Suttle stating that although FTCA provides immunity to federal agencies and their employees against certain tort claims; it does not extend this immunity to private entities or individuals performing work under contract with these agencies unless explicitly stated so by Congress.

The dissenting opinion in the Suttle v. Reich Bros. Construction Co case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and did not adequately consider relevant state laws. The dissent pointed out that under Virginia law, which should have been applied to this case, a contract made on Sunday is voidable rather than absolutely void as suggested by the majority. This means that it could be ratified or affirmed later, unlike an absolutely void contract which cannot be legally enforced at all. Therefore, according to the dissenting justices, Mrs. Suttle should have had an opportunity to affirm her husband’s Sunday agreement before his death if she so chose; denying her this right contradicted established legal principles and unfairly penalized her for circumstances beyond her control.