In the case of Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land Company v. Wilder in 1908, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land rights for street railway construction in Hawaii. The plaintiff, Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land Company, claimed that it had exclusive rights to construct railways on certain streets under an agreement with the Hawaiian government. However, these claims were challenged by defendant Wilder who argued that he also held valid permits for constructing railways on some of those same streets. The court found in favor of Wilder stating that no exclusivity was granted to any party as per Hawaiian law at the time when both parties obtained their respective permissions from local authorities. Therefore, both parties could legally build railroads within designated areas without infringing upon each other's rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land Company v. Wilder, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Hawaiian law requiring street railway companies to maintain separate compartments or cars for smokers was an overreach of legislative power. He contended that such regulation should be left up to individual businesses rather than mandated by government intervention. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential implications on personal liberties if this precedent were allowed to stand unchallenged; specifically, he feared it could lead down a slippery slope towards excessive governmental control in other areas of private enterprise and personal choice. In essence, his dissent emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance between public welfare interests and individual rights within free-market capitalism.