In Fox v. Cincinnati, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The plaintiff, Fox, had been injured when his horse and wagon fell into a hole in the street. He sued the city of Cincinnati for damages, claiming that the city had been negligent in maintaining the street. The Supreme Court held that the city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The Court reasoned that the city had a duty to maintain the streets in a safe condition, and that it had breached this duty by failing to repair the hole in the street. The Court also held that the city was liable for the damages caused by the defective street, even though the city had not been aware of the defect. The Court's decision in Fox v. Cincinnati established that cities can be held liable for damages caused by defective streets. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the idea that cities have a duty to maintain their streets in a safe condition.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Fox v. Cincinnati, arguing that the city of Cincinnati had a right to impose taxes on certain property owned by plaintiff John Fox and his wife. He argued that while it was true that Congress had granted exclusive jurisdiction over navigable waters to the federal government, this did not mean that states were precluded from taxing private property located near those waters. In addition, he noted that there was no evidence presented at trial indicating any interference with navigation or commerce as a result of taxation imposed by Cincinnati. Therefore, Justice Field concluded, since Congress has not expressly forbidden such taxation nor provided for its own regulation of such matters within state boundaries, then it is up to each individual state to determine how best to tax private property within their borders without infringing upon congressional authority over interstate commerce and navigation.