In the case of Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 1972, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that when determining just compensation for property taken by eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment, potential future profits should be considered if they are reasonably probable and directly result from its use in conjunction with other parcels. The dispute arose after a portion of land leased by Almota Farmers was seized to construct a highway. While calculating compensation, only the market value was considered without taking into account any loss in business revenue due to reduced storage capacity caused by losing part of their land. The court held that this approach failed to fully compensate for what had been taken as it did not consider all factors affecting fair market value including foreseeable uses or improvements which could affect profitability.

In the dissenting opinion for Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the economic realities of modern business practices and unjustly enriched a private corporation at public expense. He contended that by allowing compensation based on potential future profits rather than actual value or investment in property, the Court was essentially providing a windfall profit to businesses whose leases were terminated due to eminent domain proceedings initiated by government entities. This approach, he believed, would encourage speculative leasing arrangements designed solely to exploit this legal loophole for financial gain and unfairly burden taxpayers with excessive costs associated with necessary public projects such as highway construction or urban renewal initiatives.