In the case of Cleveland and Pittsburgh Railroad Company v. City of Cleveland, Ohio (1914), the Supreme Court was asked to decide on a dispute between a railroad company and the city over property rights. The railroad company claimed that it had acquired an easement for its tracks through public streets in 1853, which was granted by state legislation. However, in 1908, the city passed an ordinance requiring all railroads to elevate their tracks above street level for safety reasons. The railroad refused to comply with this order arguing that it would be too expensive and they already had existing rights from previous agreements. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of Cleveland stating that while private companies may have certain property rights granted by states or municipalities, these do not supersede public safety regulations enacted under police power authority. Therefore, even though there might be financial burdens imposed on private entities due to such regulations; if they are reasonable and necessary for ensuring public welfare then those must prevail over any conflicting individual interests.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cleveland and Pittsburgh Railroad Company v. City of Cleveland, Ohio argued that the city had no right to demand changes to a railroad bridge without compensating the company for those alterations. The justice contended that while it is within a municipality's power to require certain safety measures or improvements from businesses operating within its jurisdiction, such demands should not result in financial loss for those entities without just compensation. In this particular case, he believed that requiring the railroad company to bear all costs associated with raising their bridge was an overreach of municipal authority and violated principles of fairness and property rights.