In the case of Rust Land & Lumber Company v. Jackson et al., 1918, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a landowner could be held liable for damages caused by flooding due to logging operations on their property. The plaintiff, Jackson and others, owned farmland downstream from property owned by Rust Land & Lumber Company where extensive logging had taken place. They claimed that this activity resulted in increased water runoff which flooded their lands causing significant damage. The court ruled in favor of the defendants (Rust Land & Lumber), stating that they were not responsible for any natural consequences resulting from lawful use of their own land even if it led to an increase in volume or velocity of stream flow onto neighboring properties. This ruling established a precedent known as "the common enemy doctrine," asserting that each landowner has an equal right to protect his/her property against surface waters and is not liable for harm unintentionally caused while doing so.

In the dissenting opinion for Rust Land & Lumber Company v. Jackson et al., Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of Mississippi state law and an overreach into matters better left to state courts. He contended that the case should have been decided under local law, which he believed did not support the plaintiff’s claim. The justice also disagreed with how his colleagues applied principles of equity, arguing they had failed to consider whether it would be fair or just to grant relief in this particular situation. Furthermore, he criticized their reliance on general legal maxims rather than specific statutes or precedents relevant to this case. In conclusion, Justice Holmes felt that by deciding as they did, his fellow justices were ignoring established rules and norms governing federal-state relations and judicial review.