In the case of City of Los Angeles et al. v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation in 1919, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and compensation for public use. The city had condemned a piece of land owned by the corporation to construct an aqueduct, but disagreements arose regarding how much compensation was due to the company for this taking. The court ruled that when determining just compensation for eminent domain cases, it is necessary to consider not only market value but also any potential future profits lost as a result of losing control over the property - in this case, those associated with its use as part of an electric power system. However, these future profits must be reasonably probable and not merely speculative or possible in order to be considered valid claims for damages.

In the dissenting opinion for the case City of Los Angeles et al. v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., disagreed with the majority's decision to award damages to the gas company based on a 'fair value' standard rather than actual cost. He argued that it was unfair and unjustifiable for taxpayers to pay more than what they should have paid if there had been competition in providing utility services. Holmes believed that using fair market value as a basis for compensation would result in an overvaluation of assets and excessive charges imposed on consumers, which contradicted public interest principles inherent in rate regulation policies at that time. Furthermore, he contended that this approach could potentially encourage monopolistic practices by allowing companies to inflate their asset values artificially and then pass these costs onto consumers through higher rates.