In the case of St. Louis and Kansas City Land Company v. Kansas City, 1915, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a city ordinance that required property owners to pave their sidewalks violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The St. Louis and Kansas City Land Company argued that it did because they were not given an opportunity to contest or appeal the requirement before being held liable for non-compliance. The court ruled in favor of Kansas City, stating that there was no violation of due process rights as long as local laws provided some form of judicial review where property owners could challenge such ordinances after they had been implemented - which Missouri law did provide at this time. This ruling established a precedent allowing municipalities to enforce public improvements without prior hearings if post-enforcement judicial reviews are available; thus reinforcing cities' power over local infrastructure decisions while still upholding individual property rights under constitutional protections.

The dissenting opinion in the case of St. Louis and Kansas City Land Company v. Kansas City argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding property rights and taxation. The dissent contended that the city had no right to tax land owned by another entity, especially when it was not being used for any public purpose or benefit. They believed this constituted an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation, violating constitutional protections against such actions. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "benefit," arguing that mere proximity to improvements did not constitute a tangible benefit warranting additional taxation on unused land parcels held by corporations like St Louis and Kansas City Land Company.