In the case of District of Columbia v. Thompson in 1929, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning taxation and property rights. The dispute arose when the District of Columbia imposed an assessment for benefits on certain lands owned by Thompson's company following improvements made to adjacent streets and highways. The company argued that this was not a tax but rather an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation as it exceeded any increase in value due to these improvements. However, the court held that such assessments were indeed taxes and did not constitute unlawful takings under the Fifth Amendment since they were levied for public improvements which benefited all nearby properties proportionately. Therefore, if there is any special benefit at all from such improvement to any parcel assessed, then no question can be raised as to its constitutionality even though it may exceed actual benefits received by individual parcels.

In the dissenting opinion for District of Columbia v. Thompson, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles established by the court. He believed that a municipality should not be held liable for damages caused by its employees' negligence while performing governmental functions unless there is explicit statutory provision to do so. In this case, he pointed out that no such statute existed in Washington D.C., which meant it should not be held responsible for injuries sustained due to alleged negligence on part of its fire department personnel during firefighting operations. Furthermore, he contended that even if such liability could exist without specific legislative authorization, it would still require proof of direct causation between negligent act and injury suffered - something absent from plaintiff’s claim according to him.