In the New Orleans v. Stempel case of 1899, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of New Orleans. The dispute arose when Mr. Stempel sued for damages after his property was taken by the city to widen a street under its right to eminent domain, arguing that he had not been adequately compensated for his loss as required by law. However, it was found that he had failed to appeal within legal time limits set out in Louisiana state law and thus forfeited his right to contest compensation amounts determined by commissioners appointed during condemnation proceedings. The court held that due process does not require judicial determination of compensation before taking private property for public use but only requires an opportunity be given for such determination; since this opportunity existed and wasn't utilized timely by Mr.Stempel, no violation occurred.

The dissenting opinion in the case of New Orleans v. Stempel argued that the city of New Orleans had no right to tax a federal officer's salary, as it was not income derived from property within the state. The justice contended that such taxation would interfere with federal functions and violate constitutional principles by allowing states to indirectly control or influence federal officers through taxation. Furthermore, he asserted that this interpretation could potentially lead to abuse if other states followed suit and began taxing all forms of income earned by non-residents working for the federal government within their borders. He also disagreed with majority’s view on whether salaries should be considered 'income' under Louisiana law, arguing they were more akin to compensation for services rendered rather than profit gained from capital or labor applied to natural resources.