The U.S. Supreme Court case Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Griffith in 1895 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the rights of railroad companies to use eminent domain for their expansion efforts. The plaintiff, Griffith, owned a piece of property that was seized by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company under its power of eminent domain granted by West Virginia law. However, Griffith argued that this seizure was unlawful because it violated his constitutional rights as he did not receive just compensation for his property as required by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The court ruled in favor of the railroad company stating that while federal laws do protect citizens from having their private property taken without proper compensation, these protections only apply when it is the federal government doing so - not state governments or corporations acting under state authority like railroads. Therefore, since there were no allegations made against any actions taken directly by Congress or any other part of the federal government but rather against a corporation operating under state law (the B&O Railroad), those constitutional protections did not apply in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Griffith, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and could potentially lead to an unjust outcome. He contended that a railroad company should not be held liable for damages caused by sparks from its locomotives if it had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such occurrences. According to him, this case did not involve negligence on part of the railroad company as they had used spark arresters in their locomotives which were considered best available technology at that time. Therefore, he believed imposing liability without fault would be unfair and contrary to established principles of law.