In the Miller v. New Orleans Acid & Fertilizer Company case of 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, a fertilizer company accused by plaintiff John B. Miller of causing damage to his property through pollution and foul odors emanating from its plant operations. The court held that while it was true that no one has an absolute right to use their property in such a way as to injure another's health or comfort, there were exceptions for industries deemed necessary for public welfare and convenience - provided they are not conducted negligently or maliciously. In this instance, despite acknowledging that some harm had been caused to Mr. Miller’s property due to emissions from the factory, it was determined that because Louisiana law permitted such industrial activities within city limits and considering them beneficial for society at large; therefore any incidental damages suffered by nearby residents could not be considered unlawful.

In the dissenting opinion for Miller v. New Orleans Acid & Fertilizer Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law allowing property owners to sue neighboring businesses for damages caused by pollution contradicted previous rulings of the court. The dissent contended that this ruling undermined established principles of federalism and states' rights, as it allowed state courts to interfere with interstate commerce in violation of the Constitution. Furthermore, they believed that such interference could potentially lead to economic instability if individual states were permitted to regulate industries according to their own standards rather than adhering to uniform national regulations. They also expressed concern about potential abuses of this power by local governments seeking financial gain at the expense of business interests.