In the 1908 case of Paddell v. City of New York, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. The dispute arose when Paddell, a property owner, sued for damages after his land was flooded due to changes made by the city to a nearby creek's water flow. He argued that this constituted an illegal taking under eminent domain laws as he had not been compensated for it. However, the court disagreed with him and held that while there may have been consequential damage from public improvements which affected natural watercourses leading to flooding on his property, it did not amount to a constitutional violation or 'taking' without just compensation under eminent domain law because no part of his land was physically taken or appropriated by the city for public use.

In the dissenting opinion for Paddell v. City of New York, it was argued that the city should not be held liable for damages caused by a mob during a riot. The justice contended that while it is true that cities are responsible for maintaining order and protecting citizens' property, they cannot reasonably be expected to prevent all acts of violence or destruction committed by unruly crowds. It was further pointed out that holding municipalities financially accountable in such instances would place an undue burden on them and could potentially lead to financial ruin. This perspective emphasized the importance of distinguishing between negligence on part of the city's law enforcement (for which they can justifiably be held accountable) versus unforeseeable or uncontrollable actions taken by individuals or groups participating in riots.