In the 1916 case of Dickson v. Luck Land Company, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a landowner could be held liable for damages caused by flooding due to alterations in a natural watercourse on their property. The plaintiff, Dickson, alleged that his lands were flooded and damaged as a result of changes made by the defendant, Luck Land Company, to an existing creek bed on its own property which increased the flow of water onto his land. The court ruled in favor of Luck Land Company stating that under California law (where this case originated), it is not unlawful per se for one riparian proprietor to deepen or clean out a stream running through his lands so as to increase its capacity and thereby cause waters which would otherwise overflow upon his own lands during times of flood instead overflow upon those lower down along the course of such stream.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Dickson v. Luck Land Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which allowed for the seizure and sale of property owned by an individual who had defaulted on their debt, was unjust. The dissenting justices believed this action violated the debtor's constitutional rights under due process law because they were not given adequate notice or opportunity to defend themselves before their property was taken away. They also disagreed with how quickly and easily creditors could seize assets without considering other possible repayment options or giving debtors enough time to rectify their financial situation. Furthermore, they felt that such harsh measures should only be used as a last resort when all other attempts at collecting debts have failed.