The U.S. Supreme Court case Consolidated Turnpike Company v. Norfolk & Ocean View Railway Company in 1912 revolved around a dispute over the use of a turnpike road by the railway company for its tracks without permission from the turnpike company. The plaintiff, Consolidated Turnpike Company, argued that this constituted an illegal seizure of their property under eminent domain laws and sought to prevent further usage by the defendant, Norfolk & Ocean View Railway Company. However, it was found that Virginia state law allowed railroads to lay track on public highways with county approval which had been granted in this case. Therefore, since no private property rights were violated as per state law and due process was followed when obtaining necessary permissions from local authorities; there was no violation of constitutional rights or federal laws involved here either according to court's ruling.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Consolidated Turnpike Company v. Norfolk & Ocean View Railway Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and apply principles of equity. The dissenting justices contended that while a court may have jurisdiction over a matter, it should not exercise this authority if doing so would result in an inequitable outcome. They believed that allowing the railway company to lay tracks across a turnpike without compensating or obtaining consent from its owners constituted such an injustice. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Virginia law regarding street railways' rights-of-way on public roads and highways; they asserted that these laws did not grant permission for railroads to cross private property without compensation or agreement from landowners. Thus, according to them, by failing to uphold these principles of fairness and respect for private property rights, the Court had erred in its judgment.