The Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company v. Nelson case in 1892 revolved around a dispute over land ownership between the railway company and an individual named Nelson. The railway company claimed that it had been granted the disputed land by Congress under an act passed in 1864, which provided for the construction of railroads from Lake Superior to Puget Sound. However, Nelson argued that he had acquired title to the property before any rights were vested in the railroad company through his pre-emption claim filed under federal law on unoccupied public lands. The Supreme Court ruled against the railway company stating that at no point did they have exclusive right or title to this particular piece of land as their charter only gave them a general route without specifying exact locations or parcels of land along said route. Furthermore, when Nelson made his pre-emption filing, there was no record indicating any reservation or appropriation of these lands for railroad purposes thus making him rightful owner.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company v. Nelson, it was argued that the majority's decision contradicted previous rulings on similar cases by placing an undue burden on railway companies to ensure absolute safety in their operations. The dissenting justices contended that while railroads should indeed take reasonable precautions to protect their employees from harm, they cannot be expected to foresee and prevent every possible accident or injury. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of negligence law, arguing that it unfairly expanded a company’s liability beyond what is reasonable or customary in such cases. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications this ruling could have for businesses and industries across America if left unchallenged.