In the case of Cuyahoga River Power Company v. City of Akron in 1915, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over water rights and power generation. The Cuyahoga River Power Company had been granted permission by Ohio to construct a dam for hydroelectric power production on the river within city limits. However, Akron objected to this project arguing that it would interfere with its own plans to use the river for municipal purposes including sewage disposal and fire protection. The court held that while states have authority over their navigable waters, they cannot grant rights which infringe upon legitimate municipal uses without clear legislative intent. Therefore, unless there was explicit state legislation allowing such infringement, Akron's objections were valid and could prevent construction of the dam.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cuyahoga River Power Company v. City of Akron argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance requiring power companies to obtain consent from property owners before installing poles and wires was an overreach of municipal authority. The dissent contended that this requirement placed an undue burden on utility companies, effectively giving private citizens veto power over essential public services. They also expressed concern about potential inconsistencies and conflicts arising from different municipalities enacting varying regulations for utilities operating across multiple jurisdictions. Furthermore, they believed it could potentially infringe upon state-level regulatory powers or contradict existing laws governing utilities' rights-of-way. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation that such ordinances were within a municipality's police powers under its charter granted by the state legislature.