In the case of Hetrick v. Village of Lindsey, et al., 1923, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a village council had acted within its legal rights when it passed an ordinance to construct a sewer system and assess property owners for their share of the cost. The plaintiff, Mr. Hetrick, argued that he should not be required to pay because his property would not benefit from the sewer system as it was already equipped with adequate sewage facilities. However, both lower courts ruled in favor of the village council stating that they were acting within their authority under Ohio law which allowed them to pass such ordinances if deemed necessary for public health or convenience. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions on appeal finding no violation of due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment as claimed by Mr.Hetrick.The court stated that local authorities have broad discretion in matters related to public improvements and assessments thereof unless there is clear proof showing arbitrary abuse or discrimination.

The dissenting opinion in the Hetrick v. Village of Lindsey case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a local ordinance prohibiting livestock from running at large was an overreach of government power and infringed upon individual property rights. The dissenting justices believed that such regulations should be left up to state governments, not municipalities, as they have broader jurisdiction and are better equipped to balance public safety concerns with private property interests. They also expressed concern about potential abuse of this kind of regulatory authority by local officials who might use it arbitrarily or discriminatorily against certain residents or types of animals. Furthermore, they contended that there were less restrictive means available for addressing any legitimate public health or safety issues associated with free-roaming livestock without infringing on personal freedoms and property rights.