In the case of Detroit v. Osborne, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the City of Detroit had the right to take possession of a property owned by Osborne without providing him with just compensation. The case arose when the City of Detroit sought to acquire Osborne’s property for the purpose of constructing a public park. Osborne argued that the City’s action constituted a taking of his property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the City of Detroit had the right to take possession of Osborne’s property without providing him with just compensation. The Court reasoned that the City’s action was a valid exercise of its police power, and that the Fifth Amendment did not require the City to provide Osborne with just compensation. The Court further held that the City’s action was a valid exercise of its power to promote the public welfare, and that the City was not required to provide Osborne with just compensation in order to do so. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the City of Detroit had the right to take possession of Osborne’s property without providing him with just compensation. The Court reasoned that the City’s action was a valid exercise of its police power, and that the Fifth Amendment did not require the City to provide Osborne with just compensation.

In the Supreme Court case of Detroit v. Osborne, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be overturned. He argued that the Michigan Supreme Court had correctly interpreted state law when it held that an individual who is injured by a municipality can only recover damages if they prove gross negligence on behalf of the municipality. The majority disagreed with this interpretation, instead holding that any injury caused by a municipality could result in liability regardless of whether or not there was gross negligence involved. Justice Scalia believed this to be incorrect because it would allow for individuals to sue municipalities without having to show any fault on their part, thus making them liable for all injuries no matter how minor or insignificant they may be. He concluded his dissent by stating “The majority has created an unprecedented rule: A city will now face potential liability whenever its employees negligently cause harm—even where those harms are slight and easily remediable through other means."