In the case of Arizona et al. v. Anelich, Administratrix (1935), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs. Anelich, who was suing for damages following her husband's death due to negligence on a public highway construction project in Arizona. The state had argued that it could not be sued without its consent based on sovereign immunity principles; however, the court disagreed and held that when a state engages in activities which are typically carried out by private citizens or corporations such as building roads or operating utilities, it loses its immunity from lawsuits related to those activities under federal law. The decision established an important precedent regarding states' liability for their actions while engaging in commercial activities and significantly limited the scope of sovereign immunity protections for states under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Arizona et al. v. Anelich, it was argued that the state of Arizona should not be held liable for damages resulting from a car accident involving a state employee during his lunch break. The justice maintained that while the employee was technically on duty at all times as per his employment contract, he was not acting within the scope of his official duties when he caused an accident during personal time off-the-clock. Therefore, according to this view, it would be inappropriate to hold the employer (the State) responsible for actions taken outside of work-related tasks and responsibilities. This perspective emphasizes individual accountability over collective or institutional liability in cases where there is ambiguity about whether an action falls within professional obligations or private conduct.