In the 1911 case of Goat v. United States, the Supreme Court dealt with issues related to property rights and compensation under eminent domain. The plaintiff, Goat, owned a piece of land that was taken by the U.S government for public use without just compensation being provided as required by the Fifth Amendment. The government argued that they had not technically 'taken' his property but merely caused it to be flooded occasionally due to changes in a river's course resulting from construction work done on another part of the river. However, this flooding rendered Goat’s land unfit for cultivation or habitation which he claimed amounted to an effective taking of his property. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Goat stating that if private property is damaged or destroyed (even indirectly) because of public improvements made by the United States then it constitutes as 'taking' within meaning of Fifth Amendment requiring just compensation be paid.

The dissenting opinion in the case of GOAT v. UNITED STATES, 1911 argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too broad and could potentially infringe upon individual rights. The dissenting justices believed that while it is important to protect society from harmful actions, it is equally crucial to ensure that laws do not overstep their bounds and encroach on personal liberties. They contended that by upholding such a wide-ranging interpretation of the law, they were setting a dangerous precedent for future cases where individuals might be unfairly penalized for actions which should fall within their rights as citizens. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential misuse or abuse of this power by authorities who may use such an expansive understanding of legal boundaries to suppress or control certain behaviors or groups unjustly.