The Lombard v. West Chicago Park Commissioners case in 1900 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the right to use it for public purposes. The plaintiff, Mrs. Lombard, claimed that she owned a piece of property which was being used by the defendants, the West Chicago Park Commissioners, without her consent or any compensation provided to her. She sought an injunction against them from further using this land as part of their park system. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants based on two main points: First, they found evidence suggesting that Mrs. Lombard had previously acknowledged and accepted city improvements made on said property; secondly -and most importantly- they determined that under Illinois law at that time (which allowed municipalities to take private lands for public uses), once such lands were dedicated and accepted for those uses -as it happened with this particular plot-, reclamation by previous owners became legally impossible unless there was explicit provision allowing so within said laws.

The dissenting opinion in the Lombard v. West Chicago Park Commissioners case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a special assessment on property owners for park improvements was unjust. The dissenters believed that this ruling violated principles of equal protection under the law, as it disproportionately affected certain property owners who were required to bear an unfair share of public expenses without receiving any unique benefits from these improvements. They also contended that such assessments should only be levied when there is a clear and direct benefit to the properties being taxed, which they did not believe was evident in this case. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential abuses of power by local authorities if allowed unchecked discretion in imposing such taxes.