Eureka Lake & Yuba Canal Company v. Superior Court of Yuba County was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1885. The case involved a dispute between the Eureka Lake & Yuba Canal Company and the Superior Court of Yuba County in California. The Canal Company had been granted a right-of-way by the state of California to construct a canal across the county. The Superior Court of Yuba County had issued an injunction preventing the Canal Company from constructing the canal, claiming that the right-of-way was invalid. The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court of Yuba County had no authority to issue the injunction, as the right-of-way had been granted by the state of California and was therefore valid. The Court also held that the Superior Court of Yuba County had no authority to interfere with the Canal Company's right-of-way, as it was granted by the state of California. The Court further held that the Superior Court of Yuba County had no authority to interfere with the Canal Company's right-of-way, as it was granted by the state of California. The Supreme Court's decision in this case affirmed the right of the state of California to grant a right-of-way to the Canal Company, and held that the Superior Court of Yuba County had no authority to interfere with the Canal Company's right-of-way. This decision was important in establishing the principle that the state of California has the authority to grant rights-of-way to private companies, and that the courts cannot interfere with those rights.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Eureka Lake & Yuba Canal Company v. Superior Court of Yuba County, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of state power. He argued that California had no right to tax property located outside its borders, as it did not have jurisdiction over such property. Furthermore, he noted that even if it could be assumed that California had some authority over out-of-state lands within its boundaries due to their proximity, this would still not justify taxation without representation or consent from those affected by the taxes. Finally, Justice Field asserted that allowing states like California to impose taxes on out-of-state lands would create an imbalance between states with large amounts of land and those with small amounts; thus creating an unfair advantage for larger states at the expense of smaller ones.