The City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Street Railway Company case in 1909 revolved around the issue of a street railway franchise agreement between the city and the company. The city had granted an exclusive 50-year charter to the company, which was later amended by state legislature to be renewable every 25 years instead. However, when it came time for renewal, disputes arose over whether this amendment applied retroactively or not. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not apply retroactively and upheld the original terms of contract granting a fifty-year term without requiring renewals every twenty-five years as per subsequent legislation changes made by Minnesota's state legislature after initial agreement was signed off on between both parties involved in this legal dispute.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Street Railway Company, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles governing contracts between public corporations and private entities. He contended that when a city grants a franchise to operate within its limits, it is not merely entering into an agreement but also exercising governmental powers delegated by the state legislature. Therefore, such agreements should be interpreted in favor of public interest rather than private gain. In this particular case, he believed that there was no ambiguity in the original contract which allowed for an extension beyond 25 years without legislative approval or consent from citizens through voting process as required by Minnesota law at that time. The justice further expressed concern over potential negative implications on future dealings between municipalities and corporations if courts were to interpret ambiguities in favor of latter parties instead of protecting public interests.