In the case of Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. Cram in 1912, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership between a railroad company and an individual named Cram. The court found that although the railroad had been granted rights to certain lands by Congress under an 1864 Act, those rights did not extend to plots which were already claimed before the Act was passed. In this particular instance, it was determined that Mr. Cram's claim predated the passing of said act; therefore he held rightful title to his plot of land against any claims made by Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., despite their congressional grant for railway construction purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. Cram, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Nebraska law requiring railroads to provide free transportation for state officials was an overreach of state power. The dissenting justices believed this requirement amounted to an unconstitutional taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. They contended that while states have broad powers to regulate industries within their borders, those powers do not extend so far as allowing them to commandeer private property or services without providing fair payment in return. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such laws were necessary public measures; instead viewing them as arbitrary impositions on specific businesses rather than legitimate exercises of regulatory authority.