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. 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. The Court ordered the Commissioners to pay the Kerr family the fair market value of the land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Kerr & Others v. South Park Commissioners, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and misinterpreted certain facts of the case. He argued that it was not necessary to determine whether or not a public park could be used for private purposes as this was irrelevant to determining who held title over land within its boundaries. The issue at hand should have been decided on other grounds such as whether or not there were any valid deeds issued by those claiming ownership prior to when Congress granted authority over said lands to local authorities. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if it were relevant, there was no evidence presented which showed how allowing private use would interfere with public use of these parks; thus making it impossible for him to agree with his colleagues' decision on this matter. In conclusion he stated that he believed their ruling went against established precedent and disregarded important facts in order to reach an unjust result which favored one party over another without sufficient legal basis for doing so.