In the case of Ramapo Water Company v. City of New York, 1914, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. The dispute arose when New York City condemned land owned by Ramapo Water Company for public use as a reservoir system to supply water to its residents. The company argued that this action violated their rights under both state law and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause because they were not given an opportunity for judicial review before condemnation proceedings began. However, the court held that since there was no federal question involved and it was purely a matter of local concern governed by state law, it had no jurisdiction over such cases unless there is some infringement or denial of federal rights which can be clearly shown.

In the dissenting opinion for Ramapo Water Company v. City of New York, the justice disagreed with the majority's ruling that allowed New York City to condemn land in another state (New Jersey) for its water supply needs without compensating the private company (Ramapo Water Co.) that had already obtained rights to use and distribute this water. The dissent argued that this decision violated principles of federalism by allowing a city from one state to infringe upon property rights within another state, without any recourse or protection provided by either states' laws or courts. Furthermore, it was contended that this ruling undermined basic tenets of fairness and due process because it effectively permitted a powerful public entity (NYC) to seize valuable resources from a less powerful private entity (Ramapo), without providing just compensation as required under eminent domain law.