In the United States v. Dickinson case of 1946, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a landowner whose property was flooded by the government during World War II. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers had built a dam upstream from Dickinson's property which caused continuous flooding and rendered it useless for farming. Initially, lower courts dismissed his claim on grounds that he waited too long to file suit after initial flooding occurred in 1942. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, they reversed this decision stating that when damage is gradual rather than immediate or one-off event like an explosion or fire, claims should be made once all damages are known and can be proven as directly resulting from government action - not necessarily when first signs appear. This ruling set precedent for future cases involving ongoing damage due to governmental actions.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Dickinson, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's decision to award damages to Dickinson for flooding caused by a government dam project. He argued that while it was clear that the government had taken Dickinson's land through eminent domain, it was not clear whether this taking had resulted in any actual damage or loss of value to his property. The justice believed that before compensation could be awarded, there needed to be evidence showing how much less valuable the property became as a result of being flooded and if such diminution in value exceeded benefits received from flood control and improvement of navigation which were purposes of constructing dam. Furthermore, he contended that these questions should have been addressed at trial rather than decided by appellate courts based on an incomplete record.