Inman v. South Carolina Railway Company was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1895. The case involved a dispute between the South Carolina Railway Company and the Inman family over the ownership of a piece of land. The Inman family had been living on the land for many years, but the South Carolina Railway Company claimed that they had purchased the land from the state in 1881. The Inman family argued that they had been living on the land since 1868 and that the state had never sold the land to the railway company. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Inman family, finding that the South Carolina Railway Company had not acquired the land from the state. The Court held that the Inman family had acquired a valid title to the land through adverse possession, which is a legal doctrine that allows a person to acquire title to land if they have been in continuous, open, and exclusive possession of the land for a certain period of time. The Court also held that the South Carolina Railway Company had not acquired the land from the state, as the state had never sold the land to the railway company. The Court's decision was a victory for the Inman family, as they were able to keep their land.

In the case of Inman v. South Carolina Railway Company, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to properly consider and apply existing precedent when deciding on this case. He noted that while it was true that there were some differences between this particular situation and prior cases, those differences did not necessarily mean that different rules should be applied here. Instead, he believed the Court should have followed established principles from past decisions rather than creating new ones for this specific instance. Furthermore, Justice Harlan argued that by disregarding these precedents and instead relying solely on its own interpretation of state law, the majority had effectively allowed one party to benefit at another's expense without any legal justification or authority to do so. Ultimately then, Justice Harlan concluded his dissent by urging caution when making such decisions as they could potentially lead to unjust outcomes if done improperly or without due consideration of relevant laws and precedents already in place.