In the 1918 case of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Western Union Telegraph Company, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Western Union Telegraph Company. The dispute arose when a telegraph line was constructed along a railroad right-of-way without explicit permission from the railroad company, which claimed that this constituted trespassing on their property rights. However, Western Union argued that they had an implied easement to construct and maintain these lines based on previous agreements with other railroads and federal legislation promoting telegraphic communication across state lines. The court agreed with Western Union's argument, stating that such use did not constitute trespassing as it didn't interfere with or diminish the value of the land for railway purposes. Furthermore, it held that any ambiguity regarding whether an agreement between two parties included an easement should be resolved in favor of facilitating national communication needs over private property interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Western Union Telegraph Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the contract between both parties and their understanding of property rights. He argued that a telegraph company should not be allowed to maintain its lines on a railroad’s right-of-way indefinitely without paying rent or providing services in return, as it would amount to an unreasonable burden on the railroad company's property rights. The justice believed that such an arrangement was never intended by either party when they entered into their original agreement. Instead, he suggested that any permission granted by railroads to telegraph companies should be understood as temporary and subject to renegotiation over time based on changing circumstances and needs.