In the case of Smoot Sand & Gravel Corporation v. Washington Airport, Inc., 1930, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Smoot Sand & Gravel Corporation. The dispute arose when Washington Airport claimed that its property was damaged by flooding caused by a dam built by Smoot Sand and Gravel on Four Mile Run stream near Alexandria, Virginia. The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the construction of this dam had increased flood levels or caused any damage to Washington Airport's property. Furthermore, it was determined that even if such evidence existed, under Virginia law (which applied in this case), riparian owners have a right to use water as long as they do not significantly alter its flow or cause harm to other properties downstream - which is what happened here according to the court’s findings.

In the dissenting opinion for Smoot Sand & Gravel Corporation v. Washington Airport, Inc., it was argued that the majority's decision to hold Smoot liable for damages caused by vibrations from its gravel processing operations was unjustified. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove a direct causal link between Smoot's operations and the damage sustained by Washington Airport’s property. They also pointed out that no legal precedent existed which held a company responsible for indirect damages caused by vibrations in such circumstances. Furthermore, they contended that if every business could be held accountable for potential vibration-related damage, it would create an unreasonable burden on industries and hinder economic progress. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority ruling holding Smoot Sand & Gravel Corporation financially responsible for repairs at Washington Airport.