The U.S. Supreme Court case New Orleans Pacific Railway Company v. Parker in 1891 revolved around a dispute over land ownership between the railway company and an individual named Parker. The railway company claimed that it had been granted certain lands by Congress under an act passed in March 1871, which included the disputed property currently held by Parker. However, prior to this grant, the same piece of land was sold at public auction due to unpaid direct taxes during wartime and purchased by another party who later transferred it to Parker. The court ruled against the railway company stating that when Congress made its grant to them in 1871, they did so with full knowledge of previous laws regarding tax sales including those enacted during times of war for non-payment of taxes. Therefore, any lands previously disposed off through such sales were not part of what was granted to them as these were no longer public lands but private properties instead. This decision upheld earlier rulings affirming that once a valid sale for unpaid taxes has occurred on a piece of property; subsequent grants cannot affect or invalidate such transactions.

In the dissenting opinion for the case New Orleans Pacific Railway Company v. Parker, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a railway company liable for damages caused by its employees' negligence was unjustified. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that the employee in question had acted negligently or outside of his duties when he left a train car on a public street where it subsequently collided with and injured Mr. Parker. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Louisiana law, arguing instead that under state law, employers should only be held responsible for their employees' actions if they have direct control over those actions or if they fail to exercise due care in hiring competent staff. In this case, they felt neither condition had been met: there was no proof presented showing any lack of competence on part of either party involved nor any failure from employer’s side in exercising due diligence while hiring them.