In the Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Hasse case of 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Northern Pacific Railway Company. The dispute arose when Hasse claimed ownership over a piece of land that was also claimed by the railway company under an act passed by Congress granting lands to aid in building railroads and telegraph lines from Lake Superior to Puget Sound on the Pacific coast. The court held that since there were no settlers on this particular tract at any time before or after it was certified as part of railroad grant, it could not be considered public land open for settlement under preemption laws. Therefore, Hasse's claim based on his alleged settlement and improvements made prior to receiving patent from government had no legal standing against railway company's title derived directly from United States through congressional grant.

The dissenting opinion in the Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Hasse case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the law. The dissent contended that a railroad company, as a common carrier, has an obligation to provide reasonable and non-discriminatory rates for all its customers. It further stated that if a customer believes they have been charged unfairly or excessively by such a company, they should be able to seek redress through legal means without having first exhausted administrative remedies before regulatory bodies like the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). This view held that courts should not abdicate their role in providing justice simply because there is another potential avenue for resolution available. Furthermore, it suggested that requiring aggrieved parties to go through lengthy and potentially costly proceedings before regulatory commissions could effectively deny them access to justice altogether.