In the 1916 case of Cuyahoga River Power Company v. Northern Realty Company et al., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and easements. The Cuyahoga River Power Company had been granted an easement to construct a power canal across land owned by the Northern Realty Company. However, when it was discovered that this construction would cause significant damage to another piece of property also owned by Northern Realty, they sought compensation for damages from the power company. The court ruled in favor of Northern Realty, stating that while an easement allows certain usage rights over another's property, it does not grant carte blanche permission to cause substantial harm or damage without due compensation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cuyahoga River Power Company v. Northern Realty Company et al., 1916, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying the power company's right to divert water from a river for its operations was incorrect. The dissent contended that this interpretation of riparian rights - which typically allow landowners access and use of adjacent bodies of water - was too restrictive and failed to consider modern industrial needs. It suggested that such an approach could stifle economic growth by preventing businesses like power companies from utilizing natural resources necessary for their operations. Furthermore, it expressed concern about potential inconsistencies in future rulings on similar issues if courts continued interpreting these rights so narrowly.