In the 1931 case of Bandini Petroleum Co. et al. v. Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bandini Petroleum Company and against the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. The dispute arose when a state court ordered an oil company to produce documents for inspection as part of a tax assessment process without specifying which particular papers were needed or why they were relevant to determining taxes owed by the company. The oil company refused to comply with this order arguing that it was too broad and violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court agreed with Bandini's argument stating that such orders must be specific about what is sought after and why it is necessary for achieving justice in any given case; otherwise, they would amount to unconstitutional fishing expeditions infringing on citizens' privacy rights protected under Fourth Amendment. Therefore, this ruling set a precedent requiring specificity in document production requests during legal proceedings while also reinforcing protections against arbitrary invasions into private affairs by government authorities under guise of law enforcement or administrative procedures.

In the dissenting opinion for Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to prevent state courts from enforcing a tax law against an interstate corporation was incorrect and overstepped federal authority. He contended that it is not within the jurisdiction of federal courts to interfere with state court proceedings unless there is clear evidence of constitutional violation or infringement on rights protected by Congress under its enforcement powers in relation to amendments 13-15. In this case, he believed no such violations were present and thus saw no reason why a state should be prevented from taxing an interstate business operating within its borders as long as it does so without discrimination or undue burden on interstate commerce. Furthermore, he emphasized that if every tax dispute involving an out-of-state company could be brought before federal courts instead of being resolved at a local level first, it would greatly disrupt both judicial systems' functioning.