In the 1914 case of Bothwell v. Bingham County, Idaho, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bingham County. The dispute arose when Mr. Bothwell sued Bingham County for damages after his property was flooded due to a poorly constructed bridge that blocked water flow during heavy rains. However, he had not filed a claim with the county commissioners before filing suit as required by state law at that time which stipulated any person seeking compensation from a county must first present their claim to county commissioners for consideration and possible settlement prior to initiating legal action in court. The Supreme Court upheld this requirement and dismissed Mr. Bothwell's lawsuit on procedural grounds because he failed to comply with these statutory requirements.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bothwell v. Bingham County, Idaho disagreed with the majority's ruling that a county could be held liable for damages caused by a mob. The dissent argued that there was no legal precedent or statutory authority to hold a county responsible for such actions. It contended that holding counties accountable would essentially make them insurers of public safety, which is not their role or responsibility under law. Furthermore, it pointed out inconsistencies in the majority’s reasoning and application of previous court rulings on similar matters. The dissent also expressed concern about potential financial burdens this decision might impose on counties and ultimately taxpayers.