In the 1921 case of Heald, Executor of Peters v. District of Columbia, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, overturning a decision by a lower court that had denied him compensation for property taken by eminent domain. The dispute arose when the city took land owned by Mr. Peters to widen an alleyway without providing just compensation as required under Fifth Amendment protections against taking private property for public use without fair payment. The executor of Mr. Peter's estate, Mr. Heald, sued on his behalf and won at trial but lost on appeal before bringing it to the Supreme Court which reversed previous rulings stating that even though there was no physical invasion or occupation upon any part of petitioner’s lot itself; nevertheless its value was depreciated because its light and air were cut off from one side due to raising height level around it which constituted as 'taking' within meaning of Constitution requiring just compensation.

In the dissenting opinion for Heald, Executor of Peters, v. District of Columbia (1921), Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation that a tax on stock held by a resident in corporations outside of D.C was unconstitutional. Holmes argued that there is no constitutional principle preventing such taxation and it should be allowed if Congress deems it necessary or beneficial. He contended that this type of tax does not interfere with interstate commerce nor does it infringe upon any rights protected under due process clause as claimed by the appellant. Furthermore, he stated that just because an asset exists physically outside state boundaries doesn't mean its value cannot be taxed within them - especially when considering stocks which are intangible assets whose values can fluctuate based on various factors regardless of their physical location.