The Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company v. Wright case in 1914 involved a dispute over the liability of a railroad company for damages caused by fires started by its locomotives. The plaintiff, Wright, owned land near the defendant's railway line and claimed that sparks from passing trains had ignited several fires on his property causing significant damage. He argued that under Mississippi state law, the railroad was strictly liable for any fire damage caused by its operations regardless of negligence or fault. However, the railroad company contended this state law conflicted with federal laws governing interstate commerce and thus should be deemed unconstitutional. They asserted they were partaking in interstate commerce at those times when their engines allegedly emitted sparks onto Mr.Wright’s property which is protected under federal regulations. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wright stating that while railroads engaged in interstate commerce are subject to regulation primarily by Congress (federal), it does not exempt them from liability under valid local laws designed to prevent harm or injury to persons or property within states where they operate unless such laws conflict directly with express enactments of Congress.

In the dissenting opinion for Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company v. Wright, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law imposing liability on railroads for damages caused by fires started by locomotives violated principles of federalism and interfered with interstate commerce. The dissent contended that such matters should be governed by uniform national standards rather than varying state laws. It also pointed out potential issues related to fairness and practicality, noting that railroads could not realistically prevent all sparks from escaping their locomotives or control where those sparks landed once they did escape. Therefore, holding them strictly liable for any resulting damage seemed unreasonable and overly burdensome.