The U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Alton Water Company in 1911 revolved around a dispute between the city of Alton, Illinois and the local water company over rates for water services. The city had passed an ordinance setting maximum rates that could be charged by the company, which was subsequently challenged as being too low to allow a reasonable return on investment. The court ruled in favor of the water company, stating that while cities have power to regulate utilities within their jurisdiction, they cannot set rates so low as to effectively confiscate property without just compensation - this would violate constitutional protections against taking private property for public use without fair payment (the Takings Clause). This decision reinforced principles established in earlier cases such as Munn v. Illinois and Smyth v Ames regarding regulation of utility companies and protection of private property rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Brown v. Alton Water Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of the water company, was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there were significant issues with how rates for water services were determined and applied by this private corporation. They contended that these rates should be subject to review and regulation by public authorities as they are essentially a form of taxation on consumers who have no choice but to use these services due to lack of competition or alternatives. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation regarding what constitutes 'reasonable' charges for such utilities; arguing instead for more stringent standards and oversight over corporations providing essential public utilities like water supply.