In the 1914 case of Brand v. Union Elevated Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Union Elevated Railroad Company. The plaintiff, Mr. Brand, had sued for damages caused by noise and vibration from trains running on an elevated track near his property in Chicago which he claimed constituted a nuisance that diminished his property value and interfered with its enjoyment. However, the court held that since there was no physical invasion onto Mr.Brand's property by any part of a train or structure belonging to the railroad company and because it operated under legislative authority granted by Illinois law to run their railway system as they did at all hours necessary for public convenience without causing unnecessary harm; therefore it could not be considered as committing a legal wrong against him.

In the dissenting opinion for Brand v. Union Elevated Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the rights of property owners affected by elevated railroads. The dissent emphasized that while public utilities have a right to exist and operate, this should not infrive upon private property rights without proper compensation. It was contended that noise, vibration and darkening caused by an elevated railroad could significantly diminish a property’s value and constitute as taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, such damages should be compensated under eminent domain laws regardless if there is no physical invasion on properties involved. This perspective disagreed with majority's view which held only direct physical damage or intrusion into properties can warrant compensation under eminent domain laws.