In Hulbert v. City of Chicago, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and taxation. The plaintiff, Hulbert, owned land in Chicago that was taken by the city for public use under eminent domain laws. However, before this occurred, the city had assessed taxes on his property which he failed to pay. After taking possession of his land through condemnation proceedings and paying him just compensation for it (minus unpaid taxes), the city sought to collect additional back-taxes from him as well. Hulbert argued that once his land was condemned for public use by the government entity (the City of Chicago), any tax liens or claims against it were extinguished because such lands are generally exempt from taxation. The court ruled in favor of Hulbert stating that when a piece of private property is taken over by a governmental body via eminent domain procedures for public purposes - all previous tax obligations attached to said property should be considered nullified since publicly-owned properties are not subject to taxation.

The dissenting opinion in the Hulbert v. City of Chicago case argued that the city's decision to change a street grade, which resulted in damage to private property, was not an exercise of its police power but rather constituted a taking for public use. The justice contended that this action required just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. He disagreed with the majority view that no compensation was due because there had been no physical invasion or appropriation of property; instead, he maintained that any significant impairment caused by government action should be considered as 'taking'. Furthermore, he asserted it is irrelevant whether such damage occurred during construction or after completion - if it results from changes made by lawful authority and for public benefit then owners are entitled to recompense regardless.