The Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Company case in 1921 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of land containing valuable mineral deposits. The plaintiff, Wilson, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owner before it was sold to the defendant company and thus held rightful claim to it. However, due to an error in recording his deed with local authorities - which resulted in his name being misspelled as "Willson" - there was confusion about whether or not he actually owned the property at all. The Supreme Court ruled against Wilson on this matter, stating that because of this clerical mistake and other procedural errors made by him during his initial purchase of the land (including failing to properly notify previous owners), he did not have valid legal title to it despite having paid for it.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Company et al., Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of Alabama law, which he believed did not require an employer to provide safety equipment unless it had knowledge of dangerous conditions. He contended that there was no evidence presented in this case to suggest that the company knew about any specific danger associated with its failure to provide safety goggles. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that providing such equipment would have been a simple and inexpensive precautionary measure, arguing instead that it is not within the Court’s purview to decide what constitutes reasonable care under these circumstances. In his view, this should be determined by industry standards or legislative action rather than judicial interpretation.