In the case of McCart et al. v. Indianapolis Water Co., 1937, residents of a neighborhood in Indianapolis sued the local water company for damages due to flooding caused by the company's negligence in maintaining its infrastructure. The plaintiffs claimed that their properties were damaged when heavy rains overwhelmed an inadequately maintained reservoir and drainage system owned by the water company, causing it to overflow into their homes and yards. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them on appeal from a state court decision favoring them initially. The Supreme Court held that while private corporations providing public utilities are liable for any damage resulting from negligence or misconduct, they cannot be held responsible if such damage is caused by natural disasters beyond human control like excessive rainfall unless there was clear evidence proving otherwise - which wasn't available in this case. Therefore, despite acknowledging some degree of neglect on part of Indianapolis Water Company regarding maintenance issues; since no direct link could be established between these shortcomings and property damages suffered by plaintiffs during floods – liability couldn’t be imposed upon defendant as per existing legal provisions.

In the dissenting opinion for MCCART et al. v. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing private water companies to charge higher rates in annexed areas than in original service areas violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices contended that there was no rational basis for charging different rates based on location, especially when all customers received identical services from the same source and system of distribution. They believed this constituted an arbitrary discrimination against residents living in annexed territories, which is prohibited by constitutional principles of equal protection under law.