In the case of Sutphen Estates, Inc. v. United States et al., 1951, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government regarding a dispute over land ownership and compensation for damages caused by flooding due to construction work done by the Army Corps of Engineers on an adjacent property. The plaintiff, Sutphen Estates Inc., claimed that their property was flooded as a result of this construction and sought compensation under Fifth Amendment rights which protect against private property being taken for public use without just compensation. However, it was determined that there had been no physical invasion or appropriation of any part of Sutphen's land by Government works; rather only consequential damages resulting from lawful governmental action were present - these are not compensable under Fifth Amendment rights according to previous court rulings (United States v Willow River Co.). Therefore, despite acknowledging damage occurred due to government actions indirectly affecting water levels on plaintiff’s land causing periodic flooding during heavy rains – such indirect consequences do not constitute 'taking' in constitutional sense warranting compensation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sutphen Estates, Inc. v. United States et al., 1951 argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on intercorporate dividends was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the Internal Revenue Code. The dissenting justices believed that Congress did not intend for such dividends to be taxed when it enacted Section 115(g) of the code, which exempts certain types of corporate distributions from taxation. They pointed out that this section was designed to prevent double taxation and promote fairness by ensuring corporations are only taxed once on their income. By upholding a tax on these dividends, they argued, the court is effectively allowing double taxation and undermining Congressional intent.