In the case of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. State Highway Commission in 1934, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between a private company and state government over land use rights for infrastructure development. The Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company sought to construct a natural gas pipeline across Kansas but was met with resistance from the State Highway Commission who claimed that it had exclusive control over highway right-of-way usage under state law. The court held that while states have broad powers to regulate their highways, these powers are not absolute and must yield when they come into conflict with federal laws or interests - in this case, interstate commerce facilitated by pipelines. Therefore, despite Kansas' objections, Panhandle was allowed to proceed with its pipeline construction project as it fell within the purview of interstate commerce which is regulated by federal law rather than individual state laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. State Highway Commission argued that the majority's decision to allow a state highway commission to require a pipeline company to relocate its pipelines at its own expense was an overreach of power and violated constitutional protections against taking private property for public use without just compensation. The dissent contended that while states have broad powers to regulate highways, these powers do not extend so far as to permit them to impose such burdens on private companies without providing fair compensation. They believed this ruling set a dangerous precedent by allowing government entities too much control over privately owned infrastructure, potentially leading towards unjust confiscation of private property rights under the guise of regulation.