Kerr & Others v. South Park Commissioners is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the South Park Commissioners and the Kerr family over the ownership of a piece of land in Colorado. The Kerr family had purchased the land in 1876, but the South Park Commissioners had claimed it as part of a public park in 1877. The Kerr family argued that the Commissioners had no right to take the land without compensation, and that the Commissioners had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Kerr family, finding that the Commissioners had acted in an unconstitutional manner by taking the land without compensation. The Court held that the Commissioners had violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Court also held that the Commissioners had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and that the Kerr family was entitled to compensation for the taking of their land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Kerr & Others v. South Park Commissioners, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would have a detrimental effect on public policy. He argued that the Court should not interfere with local governments' ability to regulate their own affairs, as it had done in previous cases involving similar issues of taxation and property rights. Furthermore, he noted that if this case were decided differently than prior ones, it could lead to an increase in litigation over such matters which would be costly for both parties involved. Additionally, Justice Field expressed concern about how this ruling might affect future decisions regarding state sovereignty and federalism by allowing states more control over local government activities than they currently possess under existing law. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that the majority's decision was wrongfully interfering with local authority while potentially creating confusion among lower courts concerning what is permissible when it comes to regulating municipal affairs within a state’s borders.