The Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company case in 1904 revolved around the issue of whether a railroad company could be compelled to lay tracks within a stockyard without compensation. The Union Stock Yards Company had requested that the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad extend its lines into their property for better access to livestock pens. However, the railroad refused unless they were compensated for it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company stating that while railroads are required by law to create sidetracks or switches when public necessity demands it, this obligation does not extend onto private properties like stockyards without just compensation as per Fifth Amendment rights against taking private property for public use without fair payment.

In the dissenting opinion for Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a railroad company to charge different rates for transporting livestock based on whether or not they were destined for sale at a particular stockyard constituted an unjust discrimination against said stockyard. The dissenting justices contended that this ruling violated the Interstate Commerce Act by allowing railroads to manipulate their pricing in such a way as to favor certain businesses over others. They maintained that all shippers should be treated equally regardless of their business relationships with other entities, and expressed concern about the potential negative impact on competition if railroads were allowed to use differential pricing in this manner.