In the 1899 case of Henkel v. Cincinnati, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of Cincinnati. The dispute arose when Mr. Henkel claimed that his property was damaged due to a public improvement project initiated by the city and demanded compensation for it under Ohio state law which provided for such claims if damage resulted from a public project. However, this claim was rejected by lower courts on grounds that he had not filed within two years as required by another section of same law. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings stating that while one part did provide right to compensation, another equally important part put forth conditions (like time limit) under which this right could be exercised and both parts should be read together rather than separately.

In the dissenting opinion for Henkel v. Cincinnati, it was argued that the city of Cincinnati should not be held liable for damages caused by a mob attack on Mr. Henkel's property. The dissenting justices believed that while the city may have failed in its duty to protect Mr. Henkel's property from harm, this failure did not necessarily mean that they were responsible for compensating him for his losses. They contended that there was no legal precedent or statute which explicitly stated such an obligation existed and thus, it would be inappropriate to impose one now without legislative action first taking place.