In the 1931 case of Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al. v. Terte, Judge, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company and against a Utah judge who had issued an injunction preventing them from removing tracks on certain lands. The dispute arose when local landowners claimed that they held easements over these lands which would be violated by track removals without their consent or compensation for damages caused during this process. However, the court found that under federal law governing interstate railroads - specifically Section 1 of Act June 18, 1910 (36 Stat at L., part I p-539) - such actions were permitted as long as it was done "in accordance with its charter powers". Therefore, state courts could not interfere with these rights granted to federally regulated entities like railroads through injunctive relief or otherwise unless there was clear evidence showing abuse or misuse of those powers.

In the dissenting opinion for Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al. v. Terte, Judge, 1931 case, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a federal court in Utah to enjoin state court proceedings in Colorado infringed upon states' rights and violated principles of comity among states. The dissenters believed that this action undermined the authority and independence of state courts by allowing federal courts to interfere with their judgments without proper jurisdiction or compelling reason. They also expressed concerns about potential abuse of such power by federal courts and its implications for future cases involving interstate disputes or conflicts between state and federal laws.