In the 1906 case of Sauer v. City of New York, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute involving property rights and eminent domain. The plaintiff, Sauer, owned land in New York City that was taken by the city under its power of eminent domain to construct a public park. However, after taking possession of the land but before beginning construction on the park, part of it was used as a street for several years. Sauer sued for compensation arguing that this use exceeded what had been authorized by law when his property was seized. The court ruled against him stating that temporary deviations from an original plan do not constitute new takings requiring additional compensation if they are within reasonable limits and do not significantly interfere with or increase burdens upon the owner's remaining rights in their property beyond those originally contemplated at time of seizure.

In the dissenting opinion for Sauer v. City of New York, it was argued that the city had no right to seize and destroy a healthy dog without providing its owner with an opportunity for a hearing or trial. The justice contended that this action violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. He further asserted that while public health concerns may justify some restrictions on property rights, they do not allow for outright seizure and destruction without any form of legal recourse or compensation. In his view, such actions were tantamount to government-sanctioned theft and should be deemed unconstitutional.