The Essex Public Road Board v. Skinkle case in 1890 revolved around a dispute over the construction of a public road. The plaintiff, the Essex Public Road Board, sought to build a road across land owned by defendant Skinkle. However, Skinkle objected on grounds that he had not been properly compensated for his property as required under eminent domain laws. He also claimed that the proposed route was unnecessary and inconveniently located. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Skinkle, stating that while government entities have broad powers to take private property for public use under eminent domain laws, they must provide just compensation to affected landowners and demonstrate clear necessity for their actions. The court found insufficient evidence showing that building the road through Skinkle's property was necessary or beneficial to public welfare. This decision underscored important limitations on governmental power regarding private properties and emphasized respect towards individual rights against arbitrary state action.

The dissenting opinion in the Essex Public Road Board v. Skinkle case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax levy for road improvements was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the levy was unconstitutional because it disproportionately affected certain property owners, violating their rights to equal protection under the law. They contended that all taxpayers should share equally in public expenses and no one group should be singled out to bear an undue burden of taxation without receiving corresponding benefits or services. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "public use," arguing that improving roads did not necessarily constitute a benefit for all taxpayers, particularly those who were being asked to pay more than others. Therefore, they concluded that this kind of selective taxation violated principles of fairness and equity enshrined in constitutional law.