Parkersburg v. Brown was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a municipality could be held liable for damages caused by a defective sidewalk. The case arose when a woman named Mary Brown was injured after tripping and falling on a sidewalk in the city of Parkersburg, West Virginia. Brown sued the city for damages, claiming that the sidewalk was in a state of disrepair and that the city was negligent in not maintaining it. The Supreme Court held that the city could be held liable for damages caused by the defective sidewalk. The Court reasoned that the city had a duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition and that it had breached this duty by failing to do so. The Court also held that the city was liable for the damages caused by the defective sidewalk, even though it had not been aware of the defect prior to the accident. The Court's decision in Parkersburg v. Brown established that municipalities can be held liable for damages caused by defective sidewalks, and that they must take reasonable steps to maintain them in a safe condition. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has become an important precedent in the area of municipal liability.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Parkersburg v. Brown, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of state power. He argued that it is not within the scope of a state legislature’s authority to pass laws which interfere with private contracts between individuals or corporations, as this would be an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process. Furthermore, he noted that if states were allowed such broad powers over contract law then they could effectively nullify any federal legislation on the same subject matter by passing their own conflicting laws. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that while he did not disagree with some aspects of the majority opinion, its conclusion should have been limited only to cases where there had been no prior agreement between parties regarding interest rates on loans and other debts.