The Myles Salt Company, Limited v. Board of Commissioners of the Iberia and St. Mary Drainage District case in 1915 revolved around a dispute over taxation. The Myles Salt Company owned land that was being taxed by the local drainage district for improvements made to facilitate better water drainage in Louisiana's marshlands. The company argued that their lands were not benefited by these improvements and thus should be exempt from such taxes, as per state law which stipulated only lands benefiting from public works could be taxed for them. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Myles Salt Company stating that it was within the jurisdiction of local authorities to determine whether or not a property benefits from public improvement projects like drainage systems - even if those benefits are indirect (such as preventing future flooding). Therefore, they upheld the right of Iberia and St.Mary Drainage District to levy taxes on properties within its boundaries including those owned by Myles Salt Co., regardless if owners felt they directly benefited or not.

In the dissenting opinion for Myles Salt Company, Limited v. Board of Commissioners of the Iberia and St. Mary Drainage District, it was argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of Louisiana's laws regarding drainage districts. The dissent contended that these laws did not grant such broad powers to local authorities as to allow them to impose taxes on property owners without due process or just compensation for any damages incurred as a result of drainage operations. They believed this violated constitutional protections against unlawful takings and infringements upon private property rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that Myles Salt Company should bear responsibility for contributing towards public improvements from which it derived no special benefit compared to other members of its community.