In the 1901 case of King v. Portland City, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Portland City. The dispute arose when King claimed that his property was damaged due to a change in street grade by the city and sought compensation for it. However, according to Oregon law at that time, no damages could be claimed for such changes unless there was an invasion of property rights or if special benefits exceeded those damages. The court held that since there were no violations of any constitutional provisions nor any federal questions involved in this matter, they had no jurisdiction over it and hence dismissed the writs of error filed by Mr.King against previous judgments made by lower courts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of KING v. PORTLAND CITY argued that the city's actions were not a violation of King's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under law and due process. The justice disagreed with the majority view that Portland City had acted arbitrarily or unfairly by changing its zoning laws to prohibit King from operating his business within certain areas of the city. Instead, he believed that these changes were made in good faith for legitimate public health and safety reasons, as cities have broad powers to regulate land use within their boundaries for such purposes. He also pointed out that King was given ample notice about these changes and had an opportunity to challenge them before they took effect but failed to do so. Therefore, he concluded that there was no basis for finding a constitutional violation in this case.