In the case of Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Soderberg, 1902, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Northern Pacific Railway Company. The dispute arose when Soderberg claimed that he had a right to a piece of land through preemption rights under federal law. Preemption rights allow settlers to purchase public lands before they are offered for sale publicly if they have lived on and improved them for a certain period. However, this land was part of an indemnity limit granted by Congress to the railway company as compensation for losses incurred during construction in other areas where it could not obtain title due to prior settlement or reservation by government agencies. The court held that even though Soderberg may have settled on and improved the property first, his claim was invalid because at no point did he file any declaration stating his intention with respect to preempting said tract until after it had been selected by the railroad company as part of its indemnity lands; thus making him ineligible under preemption laws which require such notice be given before selection is made by others entitled thereto.

In the dissenting opinion for Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Soderberg, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Soderberg was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the railway company had not been given an adequate opportunity to present its case and defend itself against allegations of negligence leading to personal injury. They contended that there were significant factual disputes regarding whether or not the company had acted negligently, which should have necessitated a trial rather than summary judgment in favor of Soderberg. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant law and precedent related to employer liability for employee injuries sustained on-the-job under certain conditions. In their view, this misinterpretation led directly to an unjust outcome for Northern Pacific Railway Company.