The Monongahela Navigation Company v. United States case in 1892 revolved around the issue of eminent domain and just compensation for property taken by the government. The U.S. Government had seized a lock and dam owned by the Monongahela Navigation Company on Pennsylvania's Monongahela River, which it had authorized to be built years earlier, but did not provide what was deemed as fair compensation for it. The company sued, arguing that they were entitled to receive payment not only for their physical property but also for its business value since it generated income through tolls collected from boats passing through the lock system. However, lower courts ruled against them based on an existing law stating that such structures' value should exclude any enhancements due to public needs or improvements made after construction began. Upon reaching Supreme Court level, however, this decision was overturned with Justice David Brewer delivering majority opinion favoring Mononghela Navigation Co., asserting that "just compensation" under Fifth Amendment includes all elements of actual value including loss of potential profits when determining appropriate reimbursement amount during governmental seizure process - thus setting a precedent in cases involving eminent domain laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Monongahela Navigation Company v. United States, Justice Shiras disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "just compensation." He argued that it was not necessary to include the value of future profits in determining just compensation for a property taken by eminent domain. Instead, he believed that only the fair market value at the time of taking should be considered. According to him, including potential earnings would lead to speculative and uncertain valuations which could result in excessive compensations paid by taxpayers' money. Furthermore, he pointed out that this approach had been used consistently in previous cases without any issues or complaints about unfairness or injustice from property owners whose land had been seized under eminent domain laws.