In the Superior City v. Ripley case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by changes in water flow due to construction. The dispute arose when the city of Superior constructed a canal that altered the natural drainage of water, causing flooding on Mr. Ripley's property and damaging his land. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Ripley, stating that while cities have certain rights to make public improvements, they must also respect private property rights and cannot cause harm without providing compensation under eminent domain laws. This ruling established an important precedent regarding municipal liability for damage caused by public works projects.

In the dissenting opinion for Superior City v. Ripley, the justice argued that the city of Superior had not violated any constitutional rights by changing its boundaries and thus incorporating land owned by Ripley into its jurisdiction. The justice believed that cities have a right to expand their borders as they grow and develop, provided they follow due process in doing so. He disagreed with the majority's view that this action constituted an illegal taking of property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, arguing instead that it was simply a legitimate exercise of municipal power necessary for urban growth and development. Furthermore, he contended there was no evidence presented to suggest any significant harm or loss suffered by Ripley as a result of this incorporation; therefore, he saw no reason why such actions should be deemed unconstitutional or require compensation.