In the case of Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Taber, Guardian of Small et al., 1916, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Arkansas. The railway company claimed that it had acquired title to certain lands under an Act of Congress from 1866 and subsequent patents issued by the United States government. However, Small's guardian contested this claim on behalf of his ward who was a minor at that time, arguing that they held superior title based on earlier swamp land grants made to the state which were later transferred to them. The court ruled in favor of Taber and Small stating that while there may have been some ambiguity regarding whether these lands were indeed 'swamp and overflowed', once such designation was made by appropriate authorities (in this case - state officials), it could not be subsequently challenged or reviewed even if evidence suggested otherwise. Thus, despite having federal patents for these lands, Missouri Pacific Railway Company's claim was rejected as their rights came into existence only after those granted under swamp-land laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Taber, Guardian of Small et al., it was argued that the court erred in its decision to hold the railway company liable for damages resulting from a fire allegedly caused by sparks from one of its locomotives. The dissenting justices believed there was insufficient evidence to conclusively prove that the railway company's negligence directly resulted in the fire and subsequent property damage. They contended that other potential causes could not be ruled out beyond reasonable doubt, such as natural occurrences or third-party actions. Furthermore, they disagreed with imposing liability on corporations without clear proof of negligence causing harm under common law principles. This case represented an expansion of corporate liability which these justices felt went too far without solid evidentiary support.