In the case of Meredith et al. v. Winter Haven et al., 1943, a group of Florida citrus growers sued the City of Winter Haven and its officials for damages caused by flooding due to construction work carried out by the city on Lake Conine. The plaintiffs claimed that their lands were flooded as a result of negligence in constructing and maintaining an embankment around the lake, which was part of a larger project aimed at controlling water levels in several lakes within city limits. The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs, stating that they had failed to prove negligence on behalf of Winter Haven or its officials. The court found no evidence showing that any specific act or omission directly led to damage on plaintiff's property; rather it seemed more likely that natural causes such as heavy rainfall contributed significantly towards flooding incidents. Furthermore, even if there had been proof linking defendant's actions with land damage, this would not necessarily constitute grounds for liability since municipalities are generally immune from tort claims arising from governmental functions like flood control projects unless clear statutory provisions indicate otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for Meredith et al. v. Winter Haven et al., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize and protect the property rights of individuals against arbitrary governmental action. He contended that a city should not be allowed to annex land without providing any services or benefits in return, as it amounted to an unjust seizure of private property. The justice believed this was contrary to both state law and constitutional principles, particularly those related to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he criticized the court's reliance on precedents from other states rather than focusing on Florida law which directly governed this case.