In the case of Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Company v. Alabama Interstate Power Company, 1915, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over water rights and power generation. The Cotton Duck Company owned land on both sides of a river in Alabama and had been using it for manufacturing purposes since before the establishment of the Power Company's dam upstream. When this dam was built, it altered water levels downstream which negatively impacted operations at Cotton Duck’s mill due to reduced flow rates. The court ruled that under common law principles, riparian owners have equal rights to use flowing waters as long as they do not interfere with each other's reasonable use or enjoyment thereof; however, these rights are subject to regulation by state legislatures within constitutional limits for public welfare reasons such as navigation improvements or power production. In this case though, no such legislation existed so the court held that any substantial interference with natural flow constituting an unreasonable invasion of others' riparian rights could be enjoined unless justified by higher public interest considerations - which were absent here. Therefore judgment was given in favor of Mt Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co., affirming its right against unwarranted disturbance from upstream activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Company v. Alabama Interstate Power Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a contract clause limiting liability for negligence was unjust and against public policy. The dissenting justices believed that such clauses allowed corporations to evade responsibility for their actions, which could lead to dangerous consequences if left unchecked. They contended that allowing companies to limit their liability in this way would incentivize carelessness and disregard for safety standards, as businesses would have little reason to fear legal repercussions from negligent behavior. Furthermore, they asserted that these types of agreements were often made under duress or without full understanding by one party, making them inherently unfair contracts.