In the 1892 case of Harman v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of Chicago, upholding its right to regulate and control street railways within its jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Mr. Harman, owned a property that was affected by an ordinance passed by the city council allowing for railway construction on his street without requiring compensation for landowners like him whose properties were devalued due to this development. He argued that this violated his constitutional rights as it constituted taking private property for public use without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The court disagreed with Harman’s argument stating that while there may be some incidental damage resulting from such public improvements authorized by law, it does not constitute a direct appropriation of land which would require compensation under eminent domain laws unless there is physical invasion or occupation of one's property involved. Therefore, even though Mr.Harman might have suffered some depreciation in value because of these changes made in frontage streets where he owns real estate; since no part has been actually invaded or appropriated; hence he is not entitled to any damages or indemnity from either City Council or Railway Company operating under their authority.

In the dissenting opinion for Harman v. Chicago, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling allowing the city of Chicago to take private property without just compensation violated fundamental principles of justice and fairness. The dissenting justices contended that this action constituted an unlawful seizure under the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees citizens' rights against such abuses by government entities. They further pointed out that there were no compelling public interests or necessities involved in this case that could justify such a violation of individual property rights. Moreover, they criticized their colleagues for failing to provide clear guidelines on when and how governments can exercise eminent domain powers, thereby leaving room for potential future abuses. In conclusion, while acknowledging cities' needs to develop infrastructure projects for public benefits, they insisted these must not be achieved at expense of individuals’ constitutional rights.