United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1875. The case involved a dispute between the United States and the Union Pacific Railroad Company over the ownership of certain lands in Wyoming. The United States had granted the Union Pacific Railroad Company a right-of-way across the public lands in Wyoming in order to construct a railroad. The United States argued that the grant of the right-of-way did not include the right to own the lands, and that the Union Pacific Railroad Company was therefore not entitled to the lands. The Union Pacific Railroad Company argued that the grant of the right-of-way did include the right to own the lands, and that they were therefore entitled to the lands. The Supreme Court held that the grant of the right-of-way did not include the right to own the lands, and that the Union Pacific Railroad Company was not entitled to the lands. The Court reasoned that the grant of the right-of-way was limited to the construction of the railroad, and did not include any rights to the lands themselves. The Court also noted that the United States had not intended to grant the Union Pacific Railroad Company any rights to the lands, and that the grant of the right-of-way was not intended to be a conveyance of the lands. The Court therefore held that the Union Pacific Railroad Company was not entitled to the lands.

In United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to maintain safe conditions on its tracks. The majority opinion of the court found that the railroad company was indeed liable and should pay damages for any harm it had caused due to its negligence. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that while railroads may have a duty to use reasonable care when operating their trains and maintaining their tracks, they are not strictly liable for all injuries resulting from accidents occurring on them. He argued that if strict liability were imposed upon railroads then there would be no incentive for them to take precautions against potential hazards as they would already be responsible regardless of fault or lack thereof. Furthermore, he argued that such an interpretation of law would place too much burden upon railway companies which could lead to higher prices being passed onto consumers who rely heavily upon these services every day.