In the case City of New York v. Sage, 1915, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs. Russell Sage who was sued by the city for refusing to surrender a piece of land that she owned on Madison Avenue and which had been designated as part of a public street since 1811 but never used or improved upon by the city. The court held that although there may have been an intention to use this property as a public street at some point in time, it did not constitute sufficient grounds for claiming ownership over it without compensation due to lapse in time and lack of action taken towards its improvement or utilization for public purposes. Therefore, Mrs. Sage's refusal to give up her property without just compensation was upheld by law under constitutional protection against deprivation of private property without due process.

In the dissenting opinion for the case City of New York v. Sage, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that a city could not take private property without compensation even if it was for public use. He argued that there were circumstances in which this would be permissible under eminent domain laws and cited several examples from English law to support his argument. Furthermore, he contended that when a city takes land to open up new streets or parks, it is doing so because these projects are necessary for its growth and development - therefore benefiting all citizens including those whose property has been taken. In such cases, he believed owners should not receive any special damages beyond what they would get if their land had been taken by an individual rather than by the state.