In the case of Richard v. City of Mobile in 1907, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and taxation by local government authorities. The plaintiff, Richard, owned land within city limits that was being taxed at an allegedly unfair rate compared to other properties in the area due to its classification as "manufacturing" rather than "residential". He argued this constituted unequal treatment under Alabama state law and violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law. However, the court disagreed with Richard's argument stating that there was no violation of either state or federal laws because taxes were levied uniformly across all manufacturing properties within city limits irrespective of their specific use or value. The court also held that it is not unconstitutional for tax rates to vary based on different classes of property (such as residential versus manufacturing), so long as those classifications are reasonable and not arbitrary.

In the dissenting opinion for Richard v. City of Mobile, Justice Harlan argued that the city's actions were unconstitutional and violated property rights. He contended that a municipality does not have unlimited power to change or alter street grades at its discretion without considering the impact on private properties. In this case, he believed that altering the grade of Conti Street caused significant damage to Richard's property value and usability, which should be compensated by law under eminent domain principles. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s interpretation of Alabama state laws regarding municipal powers over streets; instead arguing they did not grant such sweeping authority as assumed by majority ruling. Thus in his view, Mr.Richard was entitled to compensation from City of Mobile due to damages suffered because of changes made in street grading.