Montclair v. Dana is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1883. The case involved a dispute between the town of Montclair, New Jersey and the heirs of a man named William Dana. The dispute centered around a piece of land that was owned by Dana and located in Montclair. The town of Montclair had passed a law that allowed them to take possession of the land and use it for public purposes. The heirs of Dana argued that this law was unconstitutional and that the town had no right to take possession of the land without compensating them. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the heirs of Dana, finding that the law passed by the town of Montclair was unconstitutional. The Court held that the town had no right to take possession of the land without compensating the heirs of Dana. The Court also held that the town had violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The decision in Montclair v. Dana established an important precedent in the United States, as it established that the government cannot take private property without compensating the owner. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it is still an important part of the law today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Montclair v. Dana, arguing that the Court should not have reversed the decision of New Jersey's Supreme Court. He argued that while it was true that a municipality could not be sued without its consent, this did not mean they were immune from all suits and liabilities; rather, he argued that municipalities had to accept certain responsibilities as part of their role in government. In particular, Justice Field noted that when a municipality owned property or operated public works such as roads or bridges, it assumed responsibility for any damages caused by those works - including damage done to private individuals' property due to negligence on behalf of municipal employees. As such, he believed there was no reason why New Jersey's Supreme Court should not have allowed Montclair Township to be held liable for damages resulting from an accident involving one of its bridges and urged his fellow justices to reverse their ruling accordingly.