The U.S. Supreme Court case Washington Market Company v. District of Columbia in 1890 revolved around a dispute over property rights and eminent domain, specifically the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. The Washington Market Company owned a market house that was taken by the District of Columbia under an act passed by Congress to extend Pennsylvania Avenue. The company claimed this action violated their Fifth Amendment rights as they were not adequately compensated for their loss. However, the court ruled against them stating that while it is necessary to provide fair compensation when taking private property for public use, what constitutes "just" compensation can be determined through legislative judgment and does not necessarily equate to market value at all times.

In the dissenting opinion for Washington Market Company v. District of Columbia, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision was a violation of private property rights and an overreach by government authority. He contended that while it is within the power of Congress to regulate commerce in D.C., this does not extend to seizing or destroying private property without just compensation. The justice believed that even if public health concerns were valid, they did not justify violating constitutional protections against such seizures. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "nuisance," arguing instead that nuisances should be limited to activities causing actual harm rather than potential risks. In his view, declaring a business as nuisance based on possible future harm sets a dangerous precedent for arbitrary governmental interference in private affairs.