The U.S. Supreme Court case Little Rock and Memphis Railroad Company v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company in 1895 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between two railroad companies regarding the use of tracks for transportation purposes. The Little Rock and Memphis Railroad Company (LR&M) argued that it had exclusive rights to certain sections of track based on its understanding of the agreement, while the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway (ETV&G) disagreed with this interpretation. The court ruled in favor of ETV&G stating that LR&M's claim was not supported by any express provision or reasonable implication from their contract terms; rather it was an inference drawn from extrinsic circumstances which could not override clear contractual language. Therefore, both companies were entitled to equal usage rights under their existing agreement.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Little Rock and Memphis Railroad Company v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law. The dissent emphasized that a contract should be considered as a whole, rather than focusing on individual clauses or provisions out of context. They believed that this holistic approach would have led to a different interpretation of the agreement between the two railroad companies involved in this dispute. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight was given to certain pieces of evidence over others during trial proceedings which they felt skewed towards favoring one party unfairly. Lastly, they expressed concern about potential negative implications for future cases involving similar contractual disputes if such an interpretative method were allowed to stand unchallenged.