In the case of Burlington Gas Light Company v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway Company (1896), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when a gas pipe owned by the Burlington Gas Light Company was damaged during construction work carried out by the railway company on their right-of-way land. The gas company argued that they had an easement to lay their pipes under this land, granted through a city ordinance which allowed them to use public streets for laying pipes; however, they did not have explicit permission from either the previous private owner or current railroad owner of this specific strip of land. The court held that while city ordinances could grant companies like Burlington Gas Light Co., rights over public lands such as roads and streets, these permissions did not extend onto privately-owned property without express consent from those owners - even if it had been previously used as a street before being sold off privately. As such, any damage caused during legitimate activities on one's own property would not be liable for damages unless there was negligence involved – which wasn't proven in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for Burlington Gas Light Company v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway Company, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court regarding eminent domain. He contended that a state legislature cannot authorize a private corporation to take another company’s property without its consent for their own use unless it is necessary for public use. In this case, he believed there was no necessity demonstrated by the railway company to justify taking over part of gas company’s land. Furthermore, he pointed out that even if such necessity existed, compensation should be made before or at least concurrently with possession rather than after as decided by majority ruling which could lead to potential abuse of power by corporations against individuals or smaller entities.