In the 1903 case Barney v. The City of New York, Charles T. Barney sued the city for damages after his property was flooded due to a sewer system malfunction. He claimed that this constituted an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that while it is true that government cannot take private property without providing fair compensation, not all damage caused by public works constitutes a "taking." In this instance, they determined that Barney's flooding issue was incidental and unintentional rather than deliberate or inevitable as part of some public project; therefore it did not qualify as a governmental 'taking' in constitutional terms. This ruling established precedent regarding what qualifies as a "taking" under eminent domain law and clarified how indirect or unintended consequences from government actions are treated within this context.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Barney v. The City of New York argued that the city's decision to revoke a ferry license held by Barney was not an act within its rights, but rather an infringement on property rights protected under the Constitution. It contended that once granted, such licenses become private property and cannot be arbitrarily revoked without due process or just compensation. This view maintained that while cities have broad powers to regulate for public safety and welfare, these powers do not extend to taking away established property rights without proper legal procedures or fair compensation. Furthermore, it emphasized that if municipalities could freely revoke such licenses at will, it would create uncertainty and instability in business operations which rely on them.