In the case of 149 Madison Avenue Corp. et al. v. Asselta et al., the U.S Supreme Court in 1946 dealt with a dispute over rent control regulations enacted during World War II to address housing shortages and prevent inflationary rents. The appellants, owners of a New York City building, argued that these regulations violated their Fifth Amendment rights by not providing just compensation for private property taken for public use as they were forced to lease their premises at below-market rates due to the imposed rent controls. The court ruled against them stating that while there was indeed an interference with property rights, it did not constitute 'taking' within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause because it was part of valid regulatory measures aimed at preventing speculative and unwarranted rent increases during wartime conditions which could have led to profiteering off public necessity. Therefore, since this regulation didn't transfer ownership or possession from landlords but only regulated its use temporarily under emergency circumstances; no compensations were required.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of 149 Madison Avenue Corp. et al. v. Asselta et al., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to consider important aspects of New York law, which should have been given more weight in this federal case involving a state contract dispute. He contended that under New York law, it is clear that an agreement to arbitrate future disputes does not waive one’s right to seek judicial intervention before arbitration occurs if there are questions about whether or not such a dispute falls within the scope of their agreement. The justice believed that by ignoring this aspect of state law, and instead focusing on general principles favoring arbitration, the Court had overstepped its bounds and improperly interfered with matters reserved for states' jurisdiction.