The Union Pacific Railway Company v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company case in 1895 revolved around a dispute over the use of railway tracks. The Union Pacific Railway had granted the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway permission to use its bridge and terminal facilities at Omaha for ten years under certain conditions. However, when the agreement expired, Union Pacific refused to renew it on similar terms which led to litigation by both parties. The Supreme Court ruled that while railroads are private corporations they also serve public interests; hence their property is considered public utility subject to governmental regulation for common good. Therefore, despite being privately owned by Union Pacific, since these tracks were used as a means of interstate commerce they could not deny another railroad company access without just cause or reasonable compensation.

In the dissenting opinion for Union Pacific Railway Company v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow Union Pacific to charge higher rates for shorter distances violated the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The dissenting justices believed that this act was designed specifically to prevent such practices by requiring railroads to charge "reasonable and just" rates without discrimination between long and short hauls. They contended that allowing a railroad company with a monopoly over certain routes (like Union Pacific) to set its own prices would lead inevitably towards abuse of power and unfair pricing strategies. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted 'special circumstances' under which exceptions could be made - arguing instead that these should only apply in cases where there is competition or other factors at play which might justify differential pricing.