In the 1892 case of Paulsen v. Portland, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of Portland, Oregon. The dispute arose when a property owner named Paulsen refused to pay for street improvements made by the city on grounds that he had not been given proper notice about them and thus did not consent to them or their associated costs. He argued this was a violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, after reviewing Oregon state law and precedent regarding municipal powers over public streets, as well as considering previous federal cases dealing with similar issues, the court concluded that cities have inherent authority to make such improvements without needing explicit permission from individual property owners. Furthermore, it found no evidence that Portland's procedures were unfair or unreasonable in this instance.

In the dissenting opinion for Paulsen v. Portland, the justice argued that the city of Portland had no right to seize a ship without due process of law. The seizure was based on an ordinance that allowed for such action if a vessel was deemed to be causing obstruction in navigable waters. However, this ordinance did not provide any guidelines or standards by which such determination could be made and thus it violated principles of fairness and impartiality inherent in due process requirements. Furthermore, there were doubts about whether the ship actually posed any significant obstruction as claimed by the city authorities. Therefore, according to this view, seizing property without clear evidence or criteria amounted to arbitrary government action contrary to constitutional protections against deprivation of property rights without due legal processes.