This case was a dispute between the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Platt family. The Platts had owned a piece of land in Nebraska since 1867, and in 1872, the Union Pacific Railroad Company had built a railroad line through the Platts' land. The Platts sued the railroad company, claiming that the railroad had taken their land without just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Platts, finding that the railroad had taken the Platts' land without just compensation. The Court held that the railroad had not paid the Platts for the land, and that the Platts were entitled to compensation for the taking of their land. The Court also held that the railroad had not provided the Platts with any notice of the taking of their land, and that the Platts were entitled to damages for the lack of notice. The Court's ruling established that the government must provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since, and is still an important part of the law today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless it is illegal or against public policy. In this case, he believed there was no evidence of illegality or public policy violation; therefore, the contract should have been enforced as written. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if contracts are not upheld then businesses will suffer from an inability to rely on their agreements with other entities and individuals. He concluded by stating that while courts may modify contracts when necessary for equity purposes they must do so within reasonable limits and only after considering all relevant facts of each particular case before them.