In the 1904 case of Wolff v. District of Columbia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, upholding a lower court's decision that denied Mr. Wolff's claim for damages against Washington D.C.'s government due to an alleged breach of contract related to his employment as a police officer. The plaintiff, Mr. Wolff had argued that he was entitled to compensation based on an act passed by Congress which increased pay for policemen and firemen in Washington D.C., but did not include those who were retired or dismissed from service before its enactment date. The Supreme Court held that this law could not be applied retroactively and therefore did not apply to Mr.Wolff since he was no longer serving at the time it came into effect; hence there was no contractual obligation on part of District authorities towards him regarding enhanced pay scale under new legislation. This ruling reinforced legal principles concerning statutory interpretation and non-retroactivity while also clarifying issues related with public employees' rights vis-a-vis legislative changes affecting their terms & conditions post retirement/dismissal.

The dissenting opinion in the Wolff v. District of Columbia case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of justice. The dissent emphasized that a citizen should not be deprived of their property without due process, which they believed had occurred in this case when Mr. Wolff's land was taken for public use without proper compensation being provided to him as required by law. They also pointed out inconsistencies between how different types of properties were treated under the same statute, arguing it violated equal protection rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation and application of certain legal provisions related to eminent domain proceedings, asserting these misinterpretations led to an unjust outcome for Mr. Wolff.