The Zonne v. Minneapolis Syndicate case in 1910 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and property rights. The plaintiff, Zonne, claimed that the defendant, Minneapolis Syndicate, had unlawfully obtained title to certain lands in Minnesota through fraudulent means. He argued that the syndicate manipulated him into signing an agreement under false pretenses which transferred his property rights to them without fair compensation or understanding of what he was agreeing to. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Zonne stating that there was no evidence of fraud on part of the defendants as alleged by him and upheld their right to retain ownership of said lands based on valid legal agreements signed by both parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Zonne v. Minneapolis Syndicate, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Minnesota statute allowing cities to condemn private property for public use without just compensation violated fundamental principles of justice and fairness. The dissenting justices believed that this law unfairly deprived individuals of their property rights without due process, which is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that while eminent domain may be used in certain circumstances for public benefit, it should not be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously at the expense of individual rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "public use," arguing that it was too broad and could potentially lead to abuses of power by local governments. In conclusion, they maintained that any taking must serve a legitimate public purpose and provide fair compensation to affected parties.