In the case of District of Columbia v. Hutton, 1891, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hutton. The dispute arose when a sewer was built by the District on public space near Hutton's property without providing an outlet for his drainage. As a result, water and sewage accumulated on his land causing damage to it. He sued for compensation and won at trial court level but lost at appellate level as they held that he had no right to damages because he did not own any easement or other proprietary interest in the public space where sewer was constructed. However, upon appeal to Supreme Court, it reversed this decision stating that irrespective of whether or not Mr.Hutton owned any such rights over public area where construction happened; if due care is not taken during construction which results into injury then district would be liable for damages under common law principles governing liability for negligent acts.

In the dissenting opinion for District of Columbia v. Hutton, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a municipality liable for damages caused by mob violence contradicted previous rulings and principles of law. The dissenting justices believed that municipalities should not be held responsible for acts committed by individuals or groups outside their control, especially when those actions were illegal and against public policy. They contended that holding cities accountable in such situations would place an undue burden on them, potentially leading to financial ruin due to circumstances beyond their control. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in the majority's reasoning regarding liability based on foreseeability of harm from mob action versus other types of accidents or disasters. Ultimately, they felt this ruling set a dangerous precedent with far-reaching implications.