In Butters et al. v. City of Oakland et al., the plaintiffs, owners of waterfront property in Oakland, California, sued the city and its officials for damages caused by a public improvement project that involved dredging and filling parts of Lake Merritt's tidal canal to create parkland. The plaintiffs claimed this work obstructed their access to navigable waterways which they had previously enjoyed through an easement right granted by Spanish law before California became part of the United States. They argued that this constituted a taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled against them stating that while Spanish law did grant certain rights to waterfront property owners, it did not include an unobstructed access to navigable waters if such obstruction was due to lawful public improvements like those carried out by Oakland city authorities. Furthermore, even if such rights existed under Spanish law at some point in time, they were extinguished when California became part of U.S territory as per Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provisions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Butters et al. v. City of Oakland et al., 1923, argued that the majority decision was incorrect because it failed to recognize a key distinction between public and private property rights. The dissenters believed that while the city had a right to regulate land use for public safety purposes, this did not extend to outright ownership or control over privately owned lands without just compensation under eminent domain laws. They contended that by allowing the city's ordinance prohibiting excavation within certain areas without permission from city officials, they were essentially granting them an easement on all properties within those zones - something which should require payment under constitutional protections against taking private property for public use without fair compensation.