In the case of Kaukauna Water Power Company v. Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kaukauna Water Power Company. The dispute centered around water rights on the Fox River in Wisconsin, where both companies operated competing hydroelectric power facilities. The Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company claimed that their older charter gave them exclusive rights to use the river's flow for power generation purposes, thus preventing any other company from doing so without their permission. However, Kaukauna argued that they had a right to operate their facility as well because it was built under a later state law which allowed such usage by multiple parties. The court held that while original charters could grant exclusive privileges like those claimed by Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Co., these were subject to alteration or repeal by subsequent legislation if it served public interest better - as was deemed true with allowing more than one party access to generate electricity from this natural resource.

In the dissenting opinion for Kaukauna Water Power Company v. Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow Kaukauna Water Power Co. to construct a dam across Fox River without obtaining consent from Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Co., who owned part of the riverbed, undermined property rights. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling effectively allowed one party to infringe upon another's property without permission or compensation under federal law - an act they deemed unconstitutional. They also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of navigable waters in relation to state versus federal jurisdiction, arguing that just because a waterway is declared non-navigable by state laws does not mean it should be exempted from federal control if used as a highway for commerce between states or with foreign countries.