In Ewing v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court ruled that a city cannot be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to repair or maintain public roads and bridges. The plaintiff had sued the city after his horse was injured when it fell into an open ditch on a public road due to lack of maintenance by the city. The court found that cities are not responsible for maintaining roads and bridges unless they have been specifically authorized to do so by state law or local ordinance; otherwise, such responsibility falls upon individuals who use them at their own risk. Furthermore, even if there is evidence of negligence on behalf of the municipality in failing to properly maintain these areas, this does not necessarily mean that liability should be imposed upon them as long as reasonable care has been taken with respect to other matters within their jurisdiction.

In Ewing v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a municipal ordinance that imposed an annual tax on all real estate within the city limits violated the Constitution's prohibition against taking private property for public use without just compensation. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this provision because there was no physical invasion or appropriation of any kind and thus no "taking" had occurred. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that although there may have been no physical intrusion into private property, by taxing it so heavily as to render its value nearly worthless constituted a de facto taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. He argued further that since taxation is inherently coercive and can be used as an instrument of oppression by government entities, such taxes should only be allowed when they are necessary for public purposes and reasonable in amount; otherwise they constitute unconstitutional takings which must be compensated accordingly.