In the case of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Eubank, 1901, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when Eubank sued for damages after his land was flooded due to a change in water flow caused by construction work done by the railroad company on its right-of-way through his property. The court held that as long as a railway company uses its easement for purposes related to transportation and does not unnecessarily harm or interfere with other rights of the owner, it is within its legal rights even if some damage results from such use. In this instance, there was no evidence showing unnecessary harm or interference beyond what was necessary for effective operation of trains; hence any incidental damage (like flooding) did not constitute an actionable wrong against which Eubank could seek compensation.

In the dissenting opinion for Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Eubank, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's view that a state could not regulate rates of interstate commerce without Congressional approval. He argued that states should be able to exercise their police powers in matters affecting public health and safety until Congress decided to act on such issues. In his view, railroads were essentially public highways established under state authority; thus, they should be subject to local regulation unless it interfered with national interests or was discriminatory against out-of-state entities. Furthermore, he contended that there was no evidence showing Kentucky’s law had any adverse impact on interstate commerce or conflicted with federal laws governing railroad operations.