In the case of Louisville Water Company v. Clark in 1891, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving water rights and property ownership. The Louisville Water Company had constructed a reservoir that flooded part of an estate owned by Mr. Clark without his permission or any legal right to do so. The company argued that they were not liable for damages because their charter granted them immunity from such claims, but this argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually the Supreme Court as well. The court held that while corporations may be given certain privileges and immunities under their charters, these cannot infringe upon private property rights unless explicitly stated in legislation - which was not the case here. Therefore, it upheld previous rulings awarding damages to Mr. Clark for trespassing onto his land and causing damage through flooding.

In the dissenting opinion for Louisville Water Company v. Clark, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Clark contradicted established legal principles regarding property rights and contracts. The dissenters believed that when the city granted a franchise to the water company, it essentially entered into a contract which could not be unilaterally altered or revoked without due process of law. They contended that by allowing Clark to tap directly into the main water supply line without paying fees to Louisville Water Company, as required under its agreement with the city, constituted an unlawful breach of this contract. Furthermore, they asserted that such action violated constitutional protections against taking private property for public use without just compensation. In their view, upholding this violation set a dangerous precedent potentially undermining contractual obligations and property rights nationwide.