In Lumbra v. United States, 1933, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual's right to claim compensation for property damage caused by government action. The plaintiff, Lumbra, owned land that was flooded due to the construction of a dam by the U.S. Government as part of its efforts to improve navigation and control floods in Connecticut River between Vermont and New Hampshire. He sought compensation under the Fifth Amendment which prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. The court held that while it is true that flooding constitutes a 'taking' within meaning of Fifth Amendment when it results in actual permanent invasion of land amounting to appropriation thereof or ousting owner from his effective possession; however, mere consequential injuries resulting from lawful governmental activities do not constitute compensable takings unless they are so severe as practically destroy or materially impair value. In this case, since there was no evidence showing any such substantial impairment occurred due to temporary flooding during high water seasons only; therefore Mr.Lumbra could not be compensated under Fifth amendment clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Lumbra v. United States, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated principles of equity. He contended that a tax lien should not be given priority over other claims simply because it is held by the government. Instead, he believed that all creditors should have an equal opportunity to recover their debts from a bankrupt estate, regardless of who they are or when their claim was filed. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of bankruptcy law and asserted that it did not support their conclusion. In his view, this case represented an unwarranted departure from established legal precedent and threatened to undermine fairness in bankruptcy proceedings.