This US Supreme Court case involved John P. Van Ness and his wife Marcia, who were the complainants/appellants in the case against The Mayor, Aldermen, and Board of Common Council of the City of Washington as well as The United States of America (defendants). At issue was a dispute over land that had been granted to Van Ness by Congress in 1803. In 1814, Congress passed an act which authorized the city government to take possession of certain lots for public use; one such lot belonged to Van Ness. He argued that this action constituted a taking without just compensation and sought damages from both defendants for their alleged trespass on his property rights. Ultimately, however, it was determined that since he had received no payment or other form of compensation from either party at any point during this process - even though they did benefit from using his land - there could be no recovery under existing law at that time.

In the case of John P. Van Ness and Marcia his wife v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Board of Common Council of the City of Washington and The United States of America, the complainants argued that their property had been taken without due process or just compensation in violation of Article III Section 2 Clause 3 (the Takings Clause) as well as Amendment V to the Constitution. However, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion stating that while he agreed with much of what was said by Justice Story in his majority opinion regarding how Congress has no power to pass laws which would violate constitutional rights such as those found within Amendments V & XIV; however he disagreed with Story's conclusion that this particular taking did not constitute a violation because it was done for public use rather than private gain. He argued instead that any taking should be considered unconstitutional unless there is an explicit provision allowing it under law or if it can be shown beyond doubt that its purpose is truly for public benefit.