The City of Omaha v. Omaha Water Company case in 1909 revolved around a dispute between the city and its water supplier. The city had granted the company a franchise to supply water for public and private use, but later decided to acquire the company's property through condemnation proceedings under Nebraska law. However, there was disagreement over how much compensation should be paid for this acquisition. The Supreme Court ruled that when determining just compensation for condemned property, it is not appropriate to consider profits derived from a monopoly created by legislative grant (in this case, the exclusive right given by the city to provide water). Instead, only tangible assets such as land or physical infrastructure can be considered in valuation calculations. This ruling clarified principles of eminent domain law regarding fair market value determination.

In the dissenting opinion for the case City of Omaha v. Omaha Water Company, Justice Harlan argued that the city had no right to take over a private company without providing just compensation. He maintained that while it was within the city's rights to purchase or condemn property for public use, they could not do so without paying fair market value. The majority ruling allowed for an appraisal process which did not adequately consider all factors contributing to a property's worth such as its earning power and future prospects; this he believed violated constitutional protections against taking private property without due process of law and just compensation. Furthermore, he contended that allowing cities to set their own rates would lead them into temptation of setting unfairly low prices when acquiring properties from unwilling sellers in order to serve public interests at expense of individual rights.