In the case of Ex Parte Metropolitan Water Company of West Virginia, 1910, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over water rights and property condemnation. The Metropolitan Water Company had been granted permission by the state legislature to supply water to municipalities in West Virginia and was given authority to condemn private property if necessary for its operations. However, when it attempted to exercise this power against land owned by another company (the Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co.), that company challenged their right to do so on constitutional grounds. The main issue before the court was whether or not a corporation chartered under federal law could be subjected to eminent domain proceedings initiated by a state-chartered corporation. In ruling in favor of the Metropolitan Water Company, Justice Lurton held that while corporations created under federal law have certain protections from state interference, they are still subject to legitimate exercises of police powers such as those involved in public utility regulation and eminent domain proceedings. This decision affirmed states' rights over federally incorporated entities within their jurisdiction regarding matters related directly or indirectly with public welfare.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Metropolitan Water Company of West Virginia, 1910, it was argued that the court had overstepped its jurisdiction. The dissenting justices believed that the case should have been handled by state courts rather than federal ones. They contended that there were no constitutional issues at stake and thus no need for Supreme Court intervention. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "public use," arguing instead that public use should be determined by local or state governments rather than a national standard set by federal courts. This disagreement stemmed from their belief in states' rights and limited federal government interference in local matters.