In the 1894 case of Sipperley v. Smith, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a New York law that allowed for property to be seized and sold without notice or hearing violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Sipperley, argued that his property had been unjustly taken by Smith who acted as a constable in executing an attachment issued by a justice of peace against him. However, the court ruled in favor of Smith stating that while due process requires notification and opportunity for hearing before deprivation of life, liberty or property can occur; this does not necessarily mean prior notice or hearing is required in all cases. In certain situations where public necessity demands swift action (like seizure), post-deprivation remedies such as subsequent hearings could satisfy requirements for procedural fairness under Due Process Clause.

The dissenting opinion in the Sipperley v. Smith case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Mr. Sipperley liable for damages after his dam caused flooding on Mr. Smith's property, was incorrect and failed to consider key aspects of water rights law. The dissent emphasized that under common law principles, landowners have a right to make reasonable use of their property as long as it does not cause substantial harm to others' properties or rights - this includes building structures like dams on rivers running through their lands. They contended that there was no evidence presented showing that Mr.Sipperley’s dam had caused significant damage or inconvenience beyond what could be expected from normal river flow variations; thus he should not be held responsible for any minor inconveniences experienced by downstream neighbors such as Mr.Smith due to increased water levels resulting from his lawful activities.