In the Pearsall v. Great Northern Railway Company case of 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when Mr. Pearsall sued for damages after his land was flooded due to a dam built by the railway company across a river adjacent to his property. He claimed that this act constituted an illegal seizure of his property under eminent domain laws and violated his Fifth Amendment rights. However, it was found that there had been no physical invasion or appropriation of Pearsall's land by the railroad; rather, they had merely erected structures on their own land which incidentally caused water to back up onto Pearsall’s property during periods of high flow. Therefore, according to existing legal principles at that time regarding riparian (water) rights and nuisance law, such indirect harm did not constitute a taking requiring compensation under constitutional law unless it involved permanent flooding or direct physical invasion/appropriation.

In the dissenting opinion for Pearsall v. Great Northern Railway Company, it was argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of the law and application to this case. The dissent believed that Mr. Pearsall's injury should be considered as resulting from negligence on part of the railway company, contrary to what was held by the majority ruling. They contended that there were sufficient grounds to hold Great Northern Railway liable for damages due to their failure in providing a safe working environment for their employee, which led directly to his accident and subsequent injuries. Furthermore, they disagreed with how causation had been determined by the majority; arguing instead that if not for this negligence on part of his employer – failing safety standards – Mr.Pearsall would not have suffered such harm while performing his duties at work.