In the Knepper v. Sands case of 1903, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights in Colorado. The plaintiff, Knepper, claimed that he had purchased a plot of land from its original owner with the understanding that it included valuable mineral deposits. However, after purchasing the property, he discovered that part of it was already being mined by Sands under an agreement made with previous owners before his purchase. Knepper sued for damages and to have Sands removed from the property. The court held in favor of Sands stating that when buying real estate properties where there are existing contracts or leases related to those properties (in this case mining rights), buyers must respect these agreements unless they were explicitly canceled during their acquisition process. Therefore, as long as Sands' contract was valid at time of sale and not terminated by previous owners prior to selling to Knepper; then his right over minerals remained intact despite change in ownership.

In the dissenting opinion for Knepper v. Sands, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania law requiring railroad companies to pay damages for livestock killed on their tracks, even if they had taken all reasonable precautions, was an unjust imposition on interstate commerce. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling effectively allowed states to regulate and burden interstate commerce in ways that were inconsistent with federal authority over such matters. They contended that while states have the power to enact laws protecting property within their borders, these laws should not interfere with or obstruct national commercial interests. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of state powers versus federal control over interstate commerce.