In the case of Cincinnati v. Vester in 1929, the Supreme Court ruled on issues related to eminent domain and just compensation for property owners. The city of Cincinnati had taken private land for public use without providing what was deemed as "just compensation" to the owner, Mr. Vester. The court held that a state's legislative determination of values does not conclusively bind the courts in deciding whether or not a price is fair when taking over private property for public use under eminent domain laws. It further stated that while it is primarily up to states' discretion to determine how much should be paid as just compensation, this amount must still pass scrutiny by judicial review if challenged by affected parties.

In the dissenting opinion for Cincinnati v. Vester, Justice Stone argued that the city of Cincinnati's decision to take private property for public use without just compensation was unconstitutional. He contended that this action violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits government from taking private property for public use without providing fair compensation to its owner. The majority had ruled in favor of Cincinnati on grounds that it acted within its rights as a municipality under Ohio law and did not violate federal constitutional protections. However, Justice Stone disagreed with their interpretation and application of both state and federal laws in this case; he believed they failed to adequately protect individual property rights against arbitrary governmental actions. His dissent emphasized respect for personal liberties enshrined in the Constitution over broad interpretations of municipal powers.