The Consolidated Turnpike Company v. Norfolk & Ocean View Railway Company case in 1912 revolved around a dispute over the use of a turnpike road for railway tracks. The Consolidated Turnpike Company, which owned and operated the toll road, sued the Norfolk & Ocean View Railway Company to prevent them from laying their tracks on it. They argued that this would interfere with their right to collect tolls and maintain control over the roadway. However, they had previously granted permission for another company (which was later acquired by Norfolk) to lay down tracks on part of their road under certain conditions including payment of an annual fee. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company stating that as long as they complied with these original terms agreed upon by both parties, they were within their rights to continue using parts of the turnpike for its railroad operations without further interference from Consolidated Turnpike Co., even if ownership changed hands due to mergers or acquisitions.

In the dissenting opinion for Consolidated Turnpike Company v. Norfolk & Ocean View Railway Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Virginia law that allowed street railway companies to lay tracks across turnpikes without compensation. He argued that this was an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The justice contended that while states have broad powers to regulate public utilities and other businesses affected with a public interest, they cannot simply take property from one corporation and give it to another without providing fair payment in return. He also noted that even if such takings were permissible under state law, they would still be subject to constitutional limitations at the federal level.