In the 1896 case of Bauman v. Ross, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendant Ross, upholding a lower court's decision that he was not liable for damages claimed by plaintiff Bauman. The dispute arose from an incident where Ross had excavated his own land and caused damage to adjacent property owned by Bauman due to subsidence (sinking). However, the court held that since there were no laws or ordinances prohibiting such excavation at the time it took place, and because Ross did not act with malicious intent towards Bauman's property rights but rather was using his own land in a manner he saw fit - which is within his legal right as owner - he could not be held responsible for any resulting damage to neighboring properties. This ruling set a precedent regarding private property rights and responsibilities in relation to neighbors' lands.

In the dissenting opinion for Bauman v. Ross, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment. He contended that property owners should be compensated when their property value is diminished due to public improvements, even if they also benefit from those improvements in other ways. According to him, it was unjust and unconstitutional to offset benefits against damages in determining compensation for private property taken or damaged for public use because this would result in unequal treatment of different properties affected by the same project based on arbitrary assessments of 'benefits'. Furthermore, he believed such an approach could lead government entities to abuse their power under eminent domain by taking more land than necessary or intentionally selecting routes for projects that minimize compensation payments. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's ruling which upheld Washington D.C.'s assessment scheme as constitutional.