In Stewart v. Wyoming Cattle Ranche Company, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Wyoming statute that allowed a rancher to graze cattle on public lands without paying a fee was unconstitutional. The Court held that the statute violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. The Court reasoned that the rancher was receiving a benefit from the public lands, and thus the government was taking his property without just compensation. The Court also held that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as it provided a benefit to the rancher that was not available to other citizens. The Court's decision in Stewart v. Wyoming Cattle Ranche Company was significant because it established that the government cannot take private property for public use without just compensation. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the Takings Clause, and has been used to protect the rights of property owners.

In the dissenting opinion of Stewart v. Wyoming Cattle Ranche Company, Justice Field argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of state law and should be overturned. He noted that while it is true that under Wyoming law, cattle owners are liable for damages caused by their animals if they fail to exercise reasonable care in controlling them, this does not mean that all livestock owners must fence in their herds at all times or else face liability for any damage done by those animals. Instead, he argued that whether an owner has exercised reasonable care depends on the circumstances surrounding each particular case and cannot be determined solely from a general statute such as one requiring fencing. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that since there was no evidence presented showing how much control over his herd Mr. Stewart had actually exercised prior to the incident in question or what other measures he could have taken to prevent it from occurring, summary judgment should not have been granted against him and instead further proceedings were necessary before determining whether he was liable for damages due to negligence or lack of proper control over his cattle herd