The Kline v. Burke Construction Company case in 1922 revolved around a dispute between the Board of Improvement of Paving District No. 20, Texarkana, Arkansas (Kline et al.) and the Burke Construction Company over a contract for street improvements. The board had entered into an agreement with the construction company to pave certain streets within its jurisdiction but later refused to pay on grounds that they did not have legal authority to enter such contracts as it violated state law which required competitive bidding for public works projects. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Burke Construction Company stating that while competitive bidding was indeed necessary under state law, this requirement could be waived if all parties involved were aware and agreed upon it beforehand - as was evident from their actions in this case. Therefore, since both parties willingly entered into the contract without following due process for competitive bidding, they must honor their obligations under said contract.

In the dissenting opinion for Kline et al. v. Burke Construction Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to void a contract between Burke Construction and Texarkana's Paving Improvement District was incorrect because it failed to consider the practical implications of such an action. He contended that while there may have been irregularities in how the contract was awarded, these did not necessarily mean that it should be nullified entirely. Instead, he suggested that any issues with the contract could have been resolved through other means without causing undue harm or disruption to either party involved in this case. Furthermore, he criticized his fellow justices for their overly strict interpretation of Arkansas law regarding public contracts and warned against setting a precedent where minor procedural errors could lead to major contractual disputes being brought before higher courts unnecessarily.