In the case of New Orleans v. Warner, 1899, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of New Orleans. The dispute arose when a property owner named Warner refused to pay an assessment for street improvements made by the city on his land. He argued that he did not request these improvements and therefore should not be required to pay for them. However, according to Louisiana law at that time, municipalities had the right to make such assessments if they deemed it necessary for public improvement or benefit. The court held that this was a valid exercise of police power and did not violate any constitutional rights as long as due process was followed - which included notifying affected parties about proposed changes and giving them an opportunity to contest before implementation occurred. Therefore, since Warner received notice and failed to object within given timeframe (30 days), he was liable for payment.

The dissenting opinion in the case of New Orleans v. Warner argued that the city of New Orleans had a valid claim to certain properties, despite not having physical possession for several years. The justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Louisiana law and believed it was incorrect to apply common-law principles regarding adverse possession in this context. He contended that under state law, actual occupation or cultivation wasn't necessary for maintaining ownership; mere intent to hold could suffice. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and previous decisions where municipalities were allowed to retain property rights without continuous occupancy or use. Thus, he felt that denying New Orleans its claim contradicted established legal precedents.