In the case of Wormley v. District of Columbia in 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and compensation for land taken by eminent domain. The plaintiff, Wormley, owned a piece of land that was seized by the government to build an alleyway as part of city planning efforts in Washington D.C. He argued that he had not been adequately compensated for his property loss under Fifth Amendment protections against taking private property without just compensation. The court found in favor of Wormley, ruling that he should have received more money from the sale because it did not reflect its true value at market rates. They determined this based on evidence showing similar properties nearby were sold at higher prices around the same time period. This decision reaffirmed principles regarding fair compensation under eminent domain laws and set precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over public use seizures and adequate payment.

In the dissenting opinion for Wormley v. District of Columbia, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of both constitutional and statutory law. He contended that the city had no right to take private property without just compensation under any circumstances, including public health emergencies like smallpox outbreaks. According to him, while it is essential for governments to have powers necessary for preserving public health and safety, these powers should not infringe upon individual rights protected by the Constitution. Therefore, he believed that Mr. Wormley deserved compensation from Washington D.C., as his house was destroyed in an effort to prevent a smallpox epidemic from spreading further into the community.