In the case of Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Moore, Administrator of Salgue in 1913, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an insurance policy claim. The plaintiff was seeking to recover from Aetna Life Insurance for a policy taken out by his deceased wife without his knowledge or consent. According to Texas law at that time, such policies were void unless they had been approved by the husband or other beneficiaries named in it. However, Aetna argued that since their company was incorporated under Connecticut laws which did not have this requirement and because the contract was made there as well, those rules should apply instead. The court sided with Moore (the administrator), ruling that while companies are generally governed by laws where they are incorporated when conducting business elsewhere; local state laws still apply if they relate directly to public interest matters like marriage and inheritance rights - areas traditionally regulated by states rather than federal government or foreign jurisdictions.

In the dissenting opinion for AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MOORE, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring out-of-state insurance companies to maintain reserves in each state they operate goes against the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenting justices believed this ruling allowed states too much power over interstate commerce and could lead to protectionist policies that would harm national economic integration. They contended that such laws were not necessary for protecting policyholders as there were other ways to ensure their security without infringing on interstate commerce rights, such as through federal regulation or cooperative agreements between states.