In the 1933 case of Best, Administrator v. District of Columbia, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, who was seeking compensation for a property taken by eminent domain. The dispute arose when Washington D.C.'s government took over private land to build a school without providing just compensation to its owner. The lower court had initially dismissed the claim on grounds that it was filed too late based on local statute limitations. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, this decision was reversed with justices ruling that constitutional rights supersede any local law or regulation and thus cannot be limited by them. Therefore, they held that owners must receive fair payment for their properties seized under eminent domain regardless of time constraints imposed by local laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Best v. District of Columbia, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to hold a municipality liable for damages caused by an alleged failure in its duty as a regulator of public health. He argued that such liability would place an undue burden on municipalities and potentially deter them from undertaking regulatory activities necessary for public welfare. Furthermore, he contended that it was not fair or reasonable to expect perfection in regulation enforcement and warned against setting a precedent where any perceived shortcoming could lead to litigation against the government entity involved. Instead, he suggested focusing on whether there had been gross negligence or willful misconduct rather than mere errors or omissions in carrying out regulatory duties.