In the Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Reiss case of 1901, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas & Pacific Railway Company. The dispute arose when Reiss claimed that he was entitled to a land grant under an act passed by Congress in 1871, which provided for additional aid to railroads in certain cases. However, this claim was contested by the railway company who argued that they were granted rights to these lands before Reiss's claim due to their construction and operation of a railroad through them as per an earlier Congressional Act from 1870. The court held that since the railway company had already begun constructing its line prior to the passage of the second act (under which Reiss made his claim), it retained priority over any subsequent claims on those lands under later acts unless explicitly revoked or modified by Congress - something not done here.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Reiss, the justice argued that the court majority erred in their interpretation of a federal statute regarding land grants to railway companies. The dissenting view held that this law did not intend to grant lands indiscriminately but rather aimed at promoting public policy by encouraging railroad construction and operation. Therefore, it was incorrect for the court majority to rule in favor of Texas & Pacific Railway Company's claim over certain parcels of land merely because they were within granted limits when there was no evidence showing these lands were necessary or beneficial for railway purposes. Furthermore, according to this viewpoint, such an expansive interpretation could lead to unjust enrichment as well as potential misuse or wastage of valuable public resources which contradicted legislative intent behind granting lands.