The U.S. Supreme Court case Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Central Stock Yards Company in 1908 revolved around a dispute between the two companies regarding freight rates for livestock transportation. The Central Stock Yards Company, which operated a stockyard in East St. Louis, Illinois, argued that the railroad company was charging unjustly high rates compared to those charged at other nearby locations such as Chicago or Indianapolis. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) initially ruled in favor of the stockyards company but on appeal, this decision was reversed by the Circuit Court. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, it held that while there may be differences in rates due to competition or other factors like geographical location and volume of business etc., these alone do not constitute discrimination under Interstate Commerce Act unless they result into undue prejudice against any particular person or locality etc., which wasn't proven here by sufficient evidence. Therefore, it upheld Circuit court's ruling stating that ICC had erred when determining whether rate disparity constituted an unreasonable preference or advantage under law without considering all relevant circumstances including competitive conditions affecting specific markets involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Central Stock Yards Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against the railroad company was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there were no grounds for holding the railroad company liable because they had not violated any contractual obligations or duties under common law. They contended that while it may be true that stockyard companies generally have an obligation to provide equal services to all customers, this principle does not apply in cases where a specific agreement has been made between two parties - as was the case here with L&N Railroad and Central Stockyards. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled by courts in different states, suggesting a lack of uniformity in legal interpretation across jurisdictions which further complicated matters.