In Parsons v. District of Columbia (1897), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the District, upholding its right to assess and collect taxes on a piece of land owned by Mary G. Parsons. The case arose when Ms. Parsons refused to pay property tax levied against her for improvements made on public roads adjacent to her property, arguing that she did not request or consent to these improvements nor derived any special benefits from them beyond those enjoyed by the general public. The court held that it was within the power of Congress - which has legislative control over Washington D.C.- and therefore also within the power of local authorities acting under Congressional authority, such as DC's Board of Commissioners who had ordered these road improvements- to levy assessments for local improvements upon properties benefited thereby even if they were unrequested by and conferred no special benefit upon their owners. This decision affirmed an important principle regarding taxation powers: namely, that governments can impose taxes or assessments related with public works projects on nearby properties deemed benefited from such projects regardless whether their owners requested or directly benefitted from said projects.

In the dissenting opinion for Parsons v. District of Columbia, 1897, it was argued that the decision to hold Mr. Parsons liable for damages caused by a mob he did not incite or control was unjust and set a dangerous precedent. The dissenting justices believed that holding an individual responsible for actions they had no part in contradicted basic principles of justice and fairness. They also expressed concern about the potential implications this ruling could have on future cases involving civil disturbances, suggesting it might unfairly penalize innocent parties who happened to be present during such events but were not directly involved in causing damage or harm.