In the 1891 case of Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company v. Plainview, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company, reversing a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The dispute arose when Plainview claimed that it had been overcharged for freight services provided by Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company under an agreement made between them in 1870 which allowed reduced rates for certain goods transported within state lines. However, after a federal law was enacted regulating interstate commerce (Interstate Commerce Act), the railroad company increased its charges to comply with this new regulation. Plainview sued to recover these additional charges but lost at trial court level; however, on appeal to Minnesota's highest court they won their case based on state laws governing contracts and corporations' obligations towards municipalities. The US Supreme Court reversed this ruling stating that while states have power over local matters including contracts involving railroads operating solely within their borders, once such companies engage in interstate commerce they become subject to federal jurisdiction as per Constitution’s Commerce Clause - thus making any conflicting state laws or agreements null and void.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company v. Plainview argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding railroad land grants. The dissent contended that under prior interpretations of such grants, a railroad company could only claim lands which were public at the time they were designated for potential railway use by Congress, not those subsequently acquired by private parties before actual selection by the company took place. Therefore, it was asserted that Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company had no right to lands already purchased privately when their grant became effective because these did not fall within its scope as per earlier precedents set by this court itself.