The Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Sides case in 1913 revolved around a dispute over land ownership. The Union Pacific Railroad claimed that it was entitled to certain lands under the Act of Congress from July 1, 1862, and an amendatory act passed on July 2, 1864. These acts granted every alternate section of public land for ten sections on each side of their railroad line to aid in construction. However, William H.H Sides argued that he had already acquired rights to some parts of this land before the grant took effect through preemption laws which allowed settlers to claim unoccupied lands by improving them or building homes thereon. The Supreme Court ruled against the railroad company stating that its charter did not give it any special privileges over preemptive rights established by law prior to the passage of these acts. Therefore, if a settler like Mr.Sides had made improvements upon and occupied such lands as his home before they were included within limits defined by these grants then those portions would be exempted from said grants thereby preserving his right over them.

In the dissenting opinion for Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Sides, it was argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of the law and application to this case. The dissent emphasized that under existing laws and precedents, a railroad company is not liable for damages caused by sparks from locomotives unless negligence can be proven. In this particular case, there was no evidence presented to suggest any form of negligence on part of Union Pacific Railroad Company - neither in terms of equipment maintenance nor operation procedures were violated or neglected. Therefore, according to the dissenting justices' view, holding the company responsible for fire damage allegedly caused by their train's sparks without proof of negligent behavior contradicts established legal principles and unjustly penalizes them.