In the case of Oklahoma Railway Company v. Severns Paving Company et al., 1919, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Oklahoma Railway Company. The dispute arose when Severns Paving Co was contracted by the city to pave a street where railway tracks were laid. The paving company demanded payment from the railway for work done around its tracks, which was refused on grounds that it had not consented to or contracted for such services. Lower courts held in favor of Severns Paving Co., but upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that no law compelled railroads to pay for public improvements adjacent to their property unless they specifically agreed or there is legislative provision requiring them to do so.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Oklahoma Railway Company v. Severns Paving Company et al., 1919, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railway companies to pave and maintain streets running parallel to their tracks was an unjust imposition on interstate commerce. The dissent contended that such a requirement placed an undue burden on railway companies by forcing them into roles traditionally held by municipalities or other local authorities. Furthermore, it was suggested that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar issues of jurisdiction and responsibility between private corporations and public entities. Ultimately, the dissent expressed concern over potential ramifications for economic efficiency and fairness within the broader transportation industry.