In the 1898 case Dewey v. Des Moines, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a railroad company that had been taxed by two different states for the same property - specifically, a bridge spanning across state lines between Iowa and Illinois. The court held that it was unconstitutional for both states to tax the full value of the bridge as if it were entirely within their respective jurisdictions. Instead, each state could only tax its proportionate share based on where exactly portions of the bridge were located geographically. This decision established an important precedent regarding interstate commerce and taxation law: when property exists in more than one jurisdiction, each can only levy taxes proportional to its share.

In the dissenting opinion for Dewey v. Des Moines, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and respect property rights as protected by law. The dissent emphasized that while public use is a valid reason for taking private property with just compensation, this case did not meet those criteria because there was no clear and direct benefit to the public from using Dewey’s land for a railway line. They contended that merely facilitating business operations of a company does not constitute 'public use'. Furthermore, they disagreed with the interpretation of ‘just compensation’, arguing it should be based on potential future profits lost due to seizure rather than current market value alone. This view suggested an approach more sensitive towards individual rights over corporate interests.