In the case of Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Porter et al., 1926, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Missouri Pacific Railroad Company. The dispute arose when a group of landowners, led by Porter, claimed that they were entitled to compensation from the railroad company for flooding caused by a bridge built across White River in Arkansas. They argued that this constituted an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause which states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. However, it was found that there had been no direct or intentional invasion of their properties and any damage was indirect or consequential due to increased flood levels upstream from natural causes rather than directly resulting from construction work done by the railroad company on its right-of-way lands granted by Congress. Therefore, it did not constitute a 'taking' within meaning of federal constitution requiring payment of compensation.

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Porter et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing damages for emotional distress without physical injury in cases of willful wrongdoing, went against established legal precedent. The dissent contended that such laws were traditionally considered invalid because they could lead to fraudulent claims and excessive verdicts. It also pointed out inconsistencies in how the court had previously treated similar issues, noting instances where it had struck down comparable laws as unconstitutional. Furthermore, the dissent expressed concern about potential negative impacts on businesses due to increased liability exposure under this ruling.