In Seybert v. City of Pittsburgh, the Supreme Court ruled that a municipality could not be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to maintain public roads. The plaintiff had sued the city after his horse and wagon were damaged while traveling on an unpaved road maintained by the city. The court found that municipalities are immune from liability when it comes to maintaining public roads because they do not have a duty to keep them in good repair or provide any other type of protection against injury or damage caused by their condition. Furthermore, since there was no contract between the parties, there was no basis for holding the city liable under common law principles either. This ruling established an important precedent regarding municipal immunity from tort claims related to public works projects such as road maintenance and construction.

In Seybert v. City of Pittsburgh, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of alcohol on Sundays violated the Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate any constitutional rights and could be enforced as written. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while states have broad powers to regulate public morals and health, they cannot do so in such a way as to interfere with an individual's right to pursue their own interests or beliefs without violating their fundamental rights under the Constitution. He argued further that Sunday laws should only be used for religious purposes and not for economic regulation or other matters unrelated to religion. In conclusion, he believed that cities had no authority over individuals' private lives unless there was some clear violation of law or morality involved; otherwise it would amount to an unconstitutional infringement upon personal liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.