In the case of New Orleans v. Warner, 1899, the city of New Orleans appealed a decision that required them to pay damages to Charles F. Warner for an alleged breach of contract regarding a lease on property owned by the city. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Orleans, stating that there was no evidence proving any contractual obligation between Mr. Warner and the City Council at all; therefore, it could not be breached as claimed by Mr.Warner. The court also noted that even if such a contract existed, it would have been illegal under Louisiana state law which prohibits municipalities from entering into contracts extending beyond their current official term without express legislative authorization. This ruling established important legal precedent concerning municipal contracts and their enforceability when they extend beyond an elected body's term in office.

In the dissenting opinion of New Orleans v. Warner, 1899, it was argued that the city of New Orleans had no right to seize a property for public use without providing just compensation to its owner. The justice emphasized that this action violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause which states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." He disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “public use,” arguing that it should not include instances where properties are seized and then leased out to private entities by cities or municipalities. This act does not serve any direct benefit to the general public but rather serves as a revenue source for local governments at expense of individual property rights. Therefore, he believed such actions were unconstitutional under U.S law.