The case McGourkey v. Toledo and Ohio Central Railway Company in 1892 revolved around a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, McGourkey, claimed that the railway company had unlawfully taken possession of his property for the construction of their railroad tracks without providing him with just compensation as required by law. He sought damages for this alleged violation of his rights. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him on grounds that he failed to prove that he was indeed the rightful owner of said property at the time it was seized by the defendant (the railway company). Furthermore, it was found out during trial proceedings that there were inconsistencies in his claim which cast doubt on its validity. Therefore, due to lack of substantial evidence supporting his allegations and failure to establish clear title over disputed land before its acquisition by defendant's predecessor-in-interest (another railway company), court held verdict in favor of Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co., thus dismissing plaintiff's complaint.

In the dissenting opinion for MCGOURKEY v. TOLEDO AND OHIO CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY, the justice argued that the plaintiff should not be allowed to recover damages from an accident caused by his own negligence. The judge believed that McGourkey had a duty of care towards himself and failed to exercise it when he chose to ride on a platform instead of inside a passenger car where seats were available. He also pointed out inconsistencies in McGourkey's testimony about whether or not he was ordered off the platform before the train started moving again after stopping at Fostoria station, suggesting this could have been an attempt to shift blame onto railway employees. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s interpretation of Ohio state law regarding passengers' rights and responsibilities while traveling on trains, arguing they misapplied it in this case.