The U.S. Supreme Court case Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railroad Company v. Stiles in 1916 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the rights of railroads to acquire property for their operations. The plaintiff, Stiles, claimed that he owned a piece of land which was being used by the railroad company without his permission or any compensation provided to him. He argued that this constituted an illegal seizure of his property under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. However, the court ruled against Stiles on two grounds: first because he had failed to prove clear title to the disputed tract; secondly because even if he did own it outright as claimed - there were no records showing such ownership - then still its acquisition by defendant would not have been unconstitutional since railroads are considered instrumentalities of commerce and thus entitled under law (specifically an act passed by Congress) allowing them certain privileges including eminent domain powers necessary for carrying out their functions effectively. This decision reinforced legal precedent regarding eminent domain rights granted to railway companies and other entities deemed essential for public welfare.

In the dissenting opinion for Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railroad Company v. Stiles (1916), Justice Holmes argued that the court majority had incorrectly interpreted Alabama state law regarding negligence and liability in railroad accidents. He believed that under Alabama law, a railway company could be held liable if it failed to provide safe transportation for passengers or freight, even if there was no specific act of negligence on its part. In this case, he felt that the plaintiff should have been allowed to recover damages from the defendant railroad company because it did not fulfill its duty of care by providing safe transport. The justice also disagreed with how evidence was handled during trial proceedings and thought more weight should have been given to certain pieces of evidence supporting plaintiff's claims.