In the case of Missouri & Kansas Interurban Railway Company v. City of Olathe, Kansas (1911), the Supreme Court examined whether a city ordinance requiring street railway companies to pave and maintain streets between their tracks and two feet beyond was constitutional. The Missouri & Kansas Interurban Railway Company argued that this requirement constituted an unlawful taking without compensation under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it imposed on them costs for public improvements that should be borne by all taxpayers. However, the court ruled in favor of Olathe, stating that such requirements were within a municipality's police power to regulate local affairs and ensure public safety. Therefore, they did not constitute an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Missouri & Kansas Interurban Railway Company v. City of Olathe, Kansas argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles established by the court. The dissent contended that a municipality should not have absolute power to regulate public utilities without any limitations or checks on its authority. It emphasized that such unchecked power could lead to arbitrary and unreasonable regulations which would infrally upon property rights protected under due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, it pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled previously, arguing for a more uniform approach based on precedent rather than individual interpretation.