In the 1911 case Kindred v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oregon. The plaintiff, Kindred, claimed that he had purchased a piece of land from an individual who had received it through the federal government's grant to Union Pacific for railroad construction. However, Union Pacific argued that they still owned the property as they never officially transferred it to anyone else and thus any subsequent sales were invalid. The court ruled in favor of Union Pacific stating that under federal law governing such grants at that time (1862), only lands actually used for constructing railroads could be sold by companies like Union Pacific; all other lands remained their property until formally disposed off by them or taken away by Congress via legislation. Therefore, since this particular plot was not used for railway construction and there was no evidence of its formal disposal by Union Pacific or legislative action against it, ownership remained with them rendering Kindred’s purchase void.

The dissenting opinion in the Kindred v. Union Pacific Railroad Company case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of fairness. The dissenting justices believed that the railroad company should be held liable for damages caused by its negligence, regardless of whether it had a contract indemnifying it against such liability. They contended that allowing companies to evade responsibility for their actions through contractual agreements undermines public safety and violates principles of justice and accountability. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of state law, arguing instead that it does not permit contracts absolving parties from liability for their own negligence.