Leavenworth County Commissioners v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1901. The case involved a dispute between the Leavenworth County Commissioners and the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company over the right of way for a railway line. The Commissioners had granted the railway company a right of way through the county, but the company had failed to build the line within the time period specified in the agreement. The Commissioners then sought to revoke the right of way, claiming that the company had breached the agreement. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company, finding that the Commissioners had no authority to revoke the right of way. The Court held that the right of way was a contract between the parties, and that the Commissioners had no power to unilaterally revoke it. The Court also held that the railway company had not breached the agreement, as the time period specified in the agreement had not yet expired. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a right of way granted by a county or other governmental entity is a contract between the parties, and that the governmental entity cannot unilaterally revoke it. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still an important part of the law today.

In the dissenting opinion of Leavenworth County Commissioners v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, Justice Brewer argued that the majority’s decision was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not a state could impose taxes on interstate commerce. He noted that while states have broad authority over their own internal affairs, they do not have any power to regulate interstate commerce unless Congress has specifically granted them such authority. As such, he argued that Kansas had no right to tax an out-of-state railroad company for its operations within the state since Congress had never given them permission to do so. Furthermore, he pointed out that if states were allowed to tax companies operating in multiple jurisdictions without congressional approval then this would lead to chaos as each state imposed different regulations and taxes on these businesses which would be impossible for them comply with all at once. In conclusion, Justice Brewer believed that allowing Kansas’ taxation of an out-of-state railway company violated both federal law and principles of comity between states and should therefore be struck down by the Court