In the case of St. Paul Gas Light Co. v. St. Paul, 1900, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a city ordinance that required gas companies to lay their pipes below street level constituted an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The plaintiff, St.Paul Gas Light Company argued that this requirement would cause them significant expense and thus amounted to a regulatory taking for which they should be compensated by the city of St.Paul. The court ruled against the gas company stating that while it is true that private property cannot be taken for public use without fair compensation, not every destruction or injury to property by governmental action has been held to be a 'taking' in constitutional sense.The court further explained that when there is no physical invasion or restraint upon it but merely some incidental inconvenience arising from lawful governmental action such as regulation on use of streets,the owner does not suffer a violation of his constitutional rights.He must bear these inconveniences as part of social burden necessary for living within organized society.

The dissenting opinion in the case of St. Paul Gas Light Co. v. St. Paul argued that the city's ordinance, which required gas companies to lay their pipes at least two feet below street level, was not an unreasonable regulation and did not infringe upon the company's rights under its charter from the state legislature or its contract with consumers. The justice contended that such a rule is within a municipality’s police power to ensure public safety and welfare, especially considering potential dangers associated with gas leaks or explosions if pipes are too close to surface level on streets frequently traversed by heavy traffic or undergoing construction work often involving digging operations. Furthermore, it was noted that this requirement does not prevent the company from carrying out its business but merely prescribes how it should be done for safety reasons; hence no violation of any constitutional provision occurs.