In the case of Zahn et al. v. Board of Public Works et al., 1926, property owners in Los Angeles challenged a city ordinance that required them to pay for sidewalk improvements adjacent to their properties. The plaintiffs argued that this was an unconstitutional taking without just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because it did not benefit them directly but rather served a public purpose. However, the U.S Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such special assessments for local improvements, ruling that they were not takings requiring compensation as long as they were reasonably related to the enhancement of property value resulting from those improvements.

In the dissenting opinion for Zahn et al. v. Board of Public Works et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and infringed upon property rights without due process of law, violating the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that a city ordinance requiring landowners to pay for street improvements in front of their properties, regardless of whether they benefited from those improvements or not, constituted an arbitrary exercise of power by local government. According to him, such ordinances should be considered as taxes rather than special assessments and thus subject to constitutional limitations on taxation powers. Furthermore, he believed that if a public improvement did not enhance property value or benefit it in any way then imposing costs on owners would be unjustified; hence making this case a matter concerning equal protection under law too.