The U.S. Supreme Court case City Railway Company v. Citizens' Street Railroad Company in 1896 revolved around a dispute between two street railway companies over the right to use certain tracks on public streets in Indianapolis, Indiana. The City Railway Company had been granted permission by the city council to lay down and operate its tracks along specified routes, which included some of the same streets where Citizens' Street Railroad already had existing tracks. When City Railway attempted to exercise this privilege, Citizens’ Street Railroad filed suit claiming that it held an exclusive franchise for those particular routes based on prior agreements with the city. The court ruled against Citizen's claim of exclusivity, stating that such rights could not be inferred from their original agreement with the city as there was no explicit grant of exclusivity mentioned therein. Furthermore, they stated that even if such a right were implied or assumed at one point due to lack of competition or other circumstances, it would cease when another company is given similar privileges by proper authorities - in this case being City Railway’s approval from the city council.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of CITY RAILWAY COMPANY v. CITIZENS' STREET RAILROAD COMPANY, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed City Railway Company to lay tracks on streets already occupied by Citizens' Street Railroad Company. He argued that this violated Citizen's exclusive rights granted by their franchise agreement with Indianapolis city officials. Harlan contended that these agreements were contracts and should be protected under contract law, which prohibits any impairment or violation of contractual obligations without consent from both parties involved. He believed allowing another company to use those same streets was an infringement upon Citizen’s rights and could potentially harm its business operations. Furthermore, he emphasized that such actions set a dangerous precedent where government entities could arbitrarily interfere in private contractual agreements.