In the case of Brooke v. City of Norfolk, 1927, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city and against a property owner who claimed that his constitutional rights were violated when he was denied compensation for damages to his property caused by changes in street levels. The plaintiff's land had been damaged due to alterations made by the city on an adjacent street which led to flooding during heavy rains. He argued this constituted a taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. However, it was determined that while these modifications did cause damage to Brooke’s property, they were part of necessary public improvements within Norfolk’s police power remit and thus didn't constitute a 'taking' as defined constitutionally. Therefore, no obligation existed for compensating any consequential damages suffered by individual properties resulting from such actions undertaken for public benefit.

In the dissenting opinion for Brooke v. City of Norfolk, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance prohibiting distribution of handbills without permission from city authorities violated First Amendment rights. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling gave too much power to local governments and could potentially lead to censorship or suppression of free speech. They contended that such ordinances should be subject to strict scrutiny in order to protect constitutional freedoms, rather than being upheld on the basis of maintaining public order or cleanliness as suggested by the majority opinion. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential discriminatory enforcement against certain groups or messages based on subjective decisions by local authorities regarding who is granted permission for distribution activities.